Wilfred N. Chiok v.

People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua

REMEDIAL LAW

Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua

Facts:
Rufina Chua met Wilfred N. Chiok in mid-1989. Chiok offered to be her investment adviser.
Chua was convinced with his representations so she made an initial investment of P200,000
which was allegedly to buy Meralco and PLDT shares. This lasted up to 1994, on which Chua
claimed that she was not given any document as evidence of their transaction. In June 1995, she
accepted Chiok’s proposal to buy shares in bulk in the amount of P9,563,900.00 and deposited
P7,100,000 to Chiok’s bank account, and delivered P2, 463,900 to him in a restaurant in
Greenhills. She has presented the deposit slip of the bank transaction but there was no receipt for
the cash delivery.

Chua’s suspicion arose when Chiok allegedly avoided her calls. Chiok reassured her by giving
her 2 interbank checks which were to be deposited only after 60-75 days. However, both checks
were dishonored. She thus refered the matter to her counsel, who sent Chiok a demand letter.
Chiok replied that the money was Chua’s investment in their unregistered partnership. Chua
then filed her complaint affidavit.

Chiok denied the allegations and claimed that her only transactions with Chua were dollar
transactions, and that in 1995, both of them decided to form an unregistered partnership. Upon
cross examination though, Chiok admitted to have received P7.9 million in June 1995 and P1.6
million earlier, and claimed that he invested P8million with Yu Que Ngo. He also claimed that
Chua panicked when she learned that Chiok was swindled by Gonzalo Nuguid and demanded the
return of investment. Chiok offered to give her Yu Que Ngo’s checks, but instead of returning
the previous checks, Chua retained them and rejected Yu Que Ngo’s offer to settle obligation.
Chua filed the case.

The RTC convicted Chiok of the crime of estafa and cancelled his bail due to probability if
released. Chiok appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in turn issued a Temporary Restraining
Order and a writ of preliminary injunction. The OSG and Chua filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA. The OSg and Chua thus filed separate petitions for
certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted them.

Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua TADZ MAJAL AYESHA VERDOTE JAAFAR
 Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua

As to the appeal case, the Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the RTC and acquitted Chiok
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As to the civil aspect,
the Court of Appeals found Chiok liable to Chua in the amount of P9,500,000.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Chua has a legal personality to file and prosecute this petition?
2. Whether or not the case is an exception to the rule on finality of acquittal and the doctrine
of double jeopardy?
3. Whether or not Chiok is civilly liable to Chua?

Ruling:
1. No. Chua lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA decision because it is
only the OSG, on behalf of the State, which can bring actions in criminal proceedings
before this Court and the CA. In Villareal v. Aliga, the Court has upheld the doctrine that
it is only the OSG, as representative of the State, which may question the acquittal of the
accused via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The rationale behind this rule is that in
a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and
not the private complainant. The interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited only to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution such that when a
criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom
on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.
The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal, but may only do so
as to the civil aspect of the case.
Although there are instances when the court adopt a liberal view and give due course to a
petition filed by an offended party, the OSG is directed to file a comment. When through
its comment the OSG takes a position similar to the private complainant’s, it is held that
the OSG ratifies and adopts the complainant’s petition as its own. However, when the
OSG in its comment neither prays that the petition be granted nor expressly ratify the
petition as its own, the rule on personality or legal standing is upheld.
Here, the OSG neither appealed the judgment or acquittal of the CA nor gave its
conformity to Chua’s special civil action for certiorari and mandamus.

2. No. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: 1) a valid
information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged;
(2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded;
and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his
express consent.

Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua TADZ MAJAL AYESHA VERDOTE JAAFAR
 Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua

In order to give life to the rule on double jeopardy, our rules on criminal proceedings
require that a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is
final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. This is referred to
as the "finality-of-acquittal" rule. There are exceptions however to the rule against double
jeopardy and its resultant doctrine of finality of acquittal. One is when the party is denied
due process of law. The second one is when there is a clear showing that the lower court
committed reversible errors of judgment but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.

Here, the Court of Appeals has validly acquired jurisdiction over Chiok’s appeal. After
acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal, the Court of Appeals took cognizance of the
unserved order of arrest. Also, the exceptions to the rate on finality-of-acquittal and
double jeopardy doctrine do not apply. The state was not deprived of due process in
presenting its case.
3. Yes. While the Court of Appeals acquitted Chiok on the ground that the prosecution’s
evidence on his alleged misappropriation of Chua’s money did not meet the quantum of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, the money transaction between the two of them was
proven by preponderance of evidence.

Wilfred N. Chiok v. People of the Philippines and Rufina Chua TADZ MAJAL AYESHA VERDOTE JAAFAR