TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused George Rebujio y Dizon beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby ACQUITS him of the crime charged. However, the prosecution having established the civil liability of the accused by preponderance of evidence, [the] accused is hereby directed to pay the private complainant the value of the subject check which is Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Fifty-One Pesos and 86/100 (Php297,051.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused George Rebujio y Dizon beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby ACQUITS him of the crime charged. However, the prosecution having established the civil liability of the accused by preponderance of evidence, [the] accused is hereby directed to pay the private complainant the value of the subject check which is Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Fifty-One Pesos and 86/100 (Php297,051.86) with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum starting from the filing of the Information until the amount is fully paid and to pay the cost of suits. SO ORDERED . [13] (Emphasis in the original) It found that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged. Albeit it was proved that the subject check was issued for valuable consideration, i.e., as payment for the sale of merchandise for dental and cosmetic surgery, it was not shown that Rebujio actually received the notice of dishonor, which was merely received by his secretary. [14] Nonetheless, Rebujio was held liable for the value of the subject check since Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 itself and existing jurisprudence fused criminal liability with the corresponding civil liability by allowing the complainant to recover such amount from the person who signed the check. [15] Ruling of the Regional Trial Court By Decision [16] dated November 22, 2018, Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Manila in Criminal Case No. M-MNL-17-0368CR-R00-00 reversed. It held that as a corporate officer of BHMGI, Rebujio may only be held civilly liable for the value of the check if he were found criminally liable, which was not the case here. The judgment was rendered without prejudice to the right of DIPC to institute a separate civil action against BHMGI for recovery of the value of the subject check. The Regional Trial Court denied reconsideration under Order [17] dated February 6, 2019. Ruling of the Court of Appeals By Decision [18] dated February 16, 2023, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court Decision and reinstated the ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court, to wit: WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated November 22, 2018 and Order dated February 6, 2019 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, in CRIMINAL CASE NO. M-MNL-17-0368CR-R00-00, are SET ASIDE . Accordingly, the Decision dated July 26, 2018 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila, in Crim. Case No. M-MNL-17-03684-CR, directing respondent George Rebujio to pay the private complainant the value of the subject check which is Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Fifty-One Pesos and 86/100 (Php297,051.86) with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum starting from the filing of the Information until the amount is fully paid and to pay cost of suits, is hereby REINSTATED . SO ORDERED . [19] (Emphasis in the original) The Court of Appeals held that a finance officer is not among those considered as corporate of