X enticed H and W to invest in his business. Convinced by X's proposal, H and w gave X a check in the amount of P500,000 as investment in her business. In turn, X gave H and w three (3) postdated checks, one for P500,000 and the other two (2) for P40,000 each, and made them sign an investment contract with Z Corporation. Upon maturity of the checks, H and W attempted to encash the same but were dishonored for being drawn against insufcient funds. This prompted H and W to demand X to make good the said checks, but to no avail. Hence, they were constrained to le a criminal complaint for estafa against him. In his defense, X denied that he enticed H and W to invest in his ow business, as he had none. According to him, he only referred them to Z Corporation Manager V who handled their investment. He also maintained that he only issued the three {3) postdated checks to accommodate them while waiting for the check from Z Corporation, but when the latter issued the check, H and W refused to accept it so he can be liable in case their investment fails. Meanwhile, H and w also filed a criminal case against X for violation of BP 22. Subsequently, X was acquitted in the BP 22 cases on the ground of reasonable doubt with a declaration that the act or omission from which liability may arise does not exist. In the estafa case, the court acquitted X of the crime of estafa, but found him civilly liable to H and W in the amount of P500,000. X contended that his acquittal and exoneration from the civil liability in the BP 22 case should have barred H and W from claiming civil liability from him in the estafa case. ls X civilly liable in the estafa case despite his acquittal and exoneration from civil liability in the BP 22 cases