FACTS

RUFINA CHUA

• Chua made an initial investment of ₱200,000.00, allegedly to buy Meralco and PLDT shares.
• Chua claimed she was not given any document evidencing every stock transaction and that she only
relied on the assurances of Chiok.
• During 1995, buy shares in bulk in the amount of ₱9,563,900.00
• alleged that she deposited ₱7,100,000.00 to Chiok's Far East Bank to Chiok
• Chua narrated that she became suspicious when Chiok later on avoided her calls and when he failed
to show any document of the sale
• Chua demanded more than ₱30,000,000.00, but Chiok and Yu Que Ngo requested for a lower
amount because the original claim was only ₱9,500,000.00. Chua did not grant their request.15

WILFRED CHIOK (Investment Adviser)

• Charged with estafa penalized under Article 315

• Chiok denied that he enticed Chua to invest in the stock market
• There was no receipt or memorandum for the cash delivery.7
• It was in 1995 when both of them decided to form an unregistered partnership
• He admitted that the ₱7,963,900.00 she gave him before she left for the United States was her
investment in this unregistered partnership.

Ruling

• the RTC convicted Chiok of the crime of estafa (RTC conviction). Its dispositive portion
reads:
• In View Of All The Foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Wilfred N. Chiok guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
• twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum and to pay the costs.
• The accused is ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of ₱9,563,900.00 with inter

CHIOK FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL ON THE RTC

• also filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and/or Injunction against the omnibus order
• the RTC issued an order of arrest25 on June 25, 1999 (order of arrest) pursuant to the omnibus order.
The order of arrest was returned to the trial court by the Makati Police Station on July 25, 1999 on
the ground that Chiok could not be located at his last given address.

The bail case:

CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction28 enjoining the arrest of Chiok. The CA ruled that Chiok should
not be deprived of liberty pending the resolution of his appeal because the offense for which he was
convicted is a non-capital offense, and that the probability of flight during the pendency of his appeal is
merely conjectural.29 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and Chua filed a motion for reconsideration
but it was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated November 16, 1999.
 CHUA FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI

We granted the OSG's and Chua's petitions and reversed the CA's injunction on the arrest of Chiok. 31 Our
decisions (SC bail decisions) became final on December 6, 2006 and June 20, 2007, respectively.

The Appeal Case

On September 21, 1999, the CA Thirteenth Division dismissed the appeal of Chiok finding him to have
jumped bail when the order of arrest was returned unserved

The consolidated petitions raise the following issues:

I. Whether or not Chua has a legal personality to file and prosecute this petition.
II. Whether or not the case is an exception to the rule on finality of acquittal and the doctrine of
double jeopardy.
III. Whether or not Chiok is civilly liable to Chua.

RULING

I. Chua lacks the legal personality to file this petition.

Chua argues that her petition should be allowed because the circumstances of this case warrant leniency on
her lack of personality to assail the criminal aspect of the CA acquittal

II. The appeal from the judgment of acquittal will place Chiok in double jeopardy.

The 1987 Constitution, as well as its predecessors, guarantees the right of the accused against double
jeopardy

Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and
provide for the requisites in order for double jeopardy to attach. 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.

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

The humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in
unequal contest with the State, x”

We find no merit in Chua's claims.

III. Chiok is civilly liable to Chua in the amount of ₱9,563,900.00.

Chiok claims thai the Joint Decision74 dated November 27, 2000 in the BP 22 case docketed as Criminal
Case No. 44739 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) San Juan, Manila - Branch 58, which absolved
Chiok from civil liability, is res judicata on this case. On the other hand, Chua. claims that the CA erred
when it ordered Chiok to pay only the amount of ₱9,500,000.00 when it was shown by evidence that the
amount should be ₱9,563,900.00

We rule that Chiok is liable For the amount of ₱9,563,900.00.

There is also no merit in Chiok's claim that his absolution from civil liability in the BP 22 case involving
the same transaction bars civil liability in this estafa case under the doctrine of res judicata in the
concept of "conclusiveness of judgment."

The doctrine of res judicata under the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" is found in
paragraph (c) of Section 47, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under this doctrine, a final judgment
or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or
their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.79 Stated differently,
facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case
between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action.80 This principle of
res judicata bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same
parties on a different claim or cause of action.81
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 179814 and the special civil action
for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 180021 are DENIED. The petition for review on certiorari in G.R.
No. 180021 is GRANTED. The Assailed Decision dated July 19, 2007 and the Resolution dated October 3,
2007 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Wilfred Chiok is ordered to
pay Rufina Chua the principal amount of ₱9,563,900.00, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum computed from October 25, 1995 until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount
shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment
until its satisfaction.