Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Castillo Vs Salvador

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The Supreme Court ruled that the award of damages against Phillip Salvador must be removed, as his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding his guilt for the crime of estafa. While an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt the accused from civil liability, the civil liability also was not proved in this case, even by the preponderance of evidence standard required for civil cases. Therefore, the Court found that damages could not rightfully be awarded against Salvador.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Castillo Vs Salvador

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    35 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the award of damages against Phillip Salvador must be removed, as his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding his guilt for the crime of estafa. While an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt the accused from civil liability, the civil liability also was not proved in this case, even by the preponderance of evidence standard required for civil cases. Therefore, the Court found that damages could not rightfully be awarded against Salvador.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Castillo vs Salvador

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the award of damages against Phillip Salvador must be removed, as his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding his guilt for the crime of estafa. While an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt the accused from civil liability, the civil liability also was not proved in this case, even by the preponderance of evidence standard required for civil cases. Therefore, the Court found that damages could not rightfully be awarded against Salvador.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views1 page

    Castillo Vs Salvador

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The Supreme Court ruled that the award of damages against Phillip Salvador must be removed, as his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt regarding his guilt for the crime of estafa. While an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not necessarily exempt the accused from civil liability, the civil liability also was not proved in this case, even by the preponderance of evidence standard required for civil cases. Therefore, the Court found that damages could not rightfully be awarded against Salvador.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Castillo vs Salvador

    Phillip Salvador was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa. CA reversed
    the decision and acquitted the accused.

    Petitioner files this petition on the civil aspect of the case alleging that despite the acquittal, the
    award of damages should be retained.

    Issue: Whether or not the there should be an award of damages despite the acquittal of the
    accused.

    Ruling:

    The award of damages must be removed.

    Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the
    accused.
    1. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the actor omission
    complained of. A person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission
    cannot and can never be held liable for such act oromission.
    1. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
    In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not
    exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

    A reading of the CA decision would show that respondent was acquitted because the
    prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove
    that all the elements of estafa are present in this case as would overcome the presumption of
    innocence in favor of appellant. 

    Thus, since the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, respondent is not exempt from civil
    liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

    However, the civil liability was not proved even by preponderance of evidence. Hence it cannot
    be awarded.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy