FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner, The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by

vs. the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been
SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents. no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot
be held responsible in the case. The petitioner's brief states on page 10:
Celedonio P. Gloria and Antonio Barredo for petitioner.
Jose G. Advincula for respondents. ... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his
failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
BOCOBO, J.: selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered
by the respondents. In other words, The Court of Appeals insists on
This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, applying in the case article 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil
Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the Code is found in Chapter II, Title 16, Book IV of the Civil Code. This fact
negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo. makes said article to a civil liability arising from a crime as in the case at
bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil Code, in the
precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Code itself, is applicable only to
At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between
"those (obligations) arising from wrongful or negligent acts or commission
Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a
not punishable by law.
taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by
Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-
old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is expressed thus:
criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and
he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one ... We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability sought to
day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil obligation arising from a
petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The Court of felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation
Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. Severino imposed in article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the
Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an selection or supervision of his servant or employee.
action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole
proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate
the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly,
P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla.
modified by the Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to P1,000 with legal The defendant maintains that Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the Penal
interest from the time the action was instituted. It is undisputed that Fontanilla 's Code, his (defendant's) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said
negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has
road, and at high speed. As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals found: not been exhausted. To decide the main issue, we must cut through the tangle that
has, in the minds of many confused and jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos,
... It is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla's employer. There is proof that or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under articles 1902-1910 of
he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. the Civil Code. This should be done, because justice may be lost in a labyrinth,
(See p. 22, appellant's brief.) In fact it is shown he was careless in unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in
employing Fontanilla who had been caught several times for violation of our inquiry by the luminous presentation of the perplexing subject by renown
the Automobile Law and speeding (Exhibit A) — violation which appeared jurists and we are likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as
in the records of the Bureau of Public Works available to be public and to well as by the solemn clarity of the consideration in several sentences of the
himself. Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of Supreme Tribunal of Spain.
article 1903 of the Civil Code.
Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a
separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special
principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the official upon
and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored. whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which
case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable.
The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code are as follows:
Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any damages
CIVIL CODE caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody.

ART. 1089 Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-contracts, The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons
and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which any kind of mentioned therein prove that they are exercised all the diligence of a good
fault or negligence intervenes. father of a family to prevent the damage.

xxx xxx xxx ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his employees may
recover from the latter what he may have paid.
ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be
governed by the provisions of the Penal Code. REVISED PENAL CODE

ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault ART. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person
or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.
ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption
xxx xxx xxx from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article
12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include
ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced to the following
another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done. rules:

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is First. In cases of subdivision, 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civil liability for acts
enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of committed by any imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine
persons for whom another is responsible. years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has
acted without discernment shall devolve upon those having such person
under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no
The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for
fault or negligence on their part.
any damages caused by the minor children who live with them.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his
Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons
authority, legal guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent,
subject to their authority and living with them.
said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil
Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equally liable for
law.
any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of
the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the person for
duties.
whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period; if it would
which each one shall be liable. have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods shall be imposed.
When the respective shares can not be equitably determined, even approximately,
or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damage has been caused which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty
with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed."
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons using
violence or causing the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be It will thus be seen that while the terms of articles 1902 of the Civil Code seem to be
no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that broad enough to cover the driver's negligence in the instant case, nevertheless
part of their property exempt from execution. article 1093 limits cuasi-delitos to acts or omissions "not punishable by law." But
inasmuch as article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes not only reckless but
ART. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and even simple imprudence or negligence, the fault or negligence under article 1902 of
proprietors of establishment. — In default of persons criminally liable, the Civil Code has apparently been crowded out. It is this overlapping that makes
innkeepers, tavern keepers, and any other persons or corporation shall be the "confusion worse confounded." However, a closer study shows that such a
civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases concurrence of scope in regard to negligent acts does not destroy the distinction
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delitos
regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing damages may produce
civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910
robbery or theft within their houses lodging therein, or the person, or for of the Civil Code.
the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual looms clear and
of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have unmistakable. This legal institution is of ancient lineage, one of its early ancestors
followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may being the Lex Aquilia in the Roman Law. In fact, in Spanish legal terminology, this
have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. responsibility is often referred to as culpa aquiliana. The Partidas also contributed
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or to the genealogy of the present fault or negligence under the Civil Code; for
intimidation against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the instance, Law 6, Title 15, of Partida 7, says: "Tenudo es de fazer emienda, porque,
innkeeper's employees. como quier que el non fizo a sabiendas en daño al otro, pero acaescio por su culpa."

ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil Code. According to article
liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to 1089, one of the five sources of obligations is this legal institution of cuasi-
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of delito or culpa extra-contractual: "los actos . . . en que intervenga cualquier genero
industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, de culpa o negligencia." Then article 1093 provides that this kind of obligation shall
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. be governed by Chapter II of Title XVI of Book IV, meaning articles 1902-0910. This
portion of the Civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution of culpa
xxx xxx xxx aquiliana.

ART. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private Quedando las cosas asi, a proposito de la realidad pura y neta de
concern. los hechos, todavia menos parece sostenible que exista cosa
juzgada acerca de la obligacion civil de indemnizar los quebrantos y
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while menoscabos inferidos por el choque de los trenes. El titulo en que se funda
the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage. la accion para demandar el resarcimiento, no puede confundirse con las
responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, siquiera exista en este, sea el
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished cual sea, una culpa rodeada de notas agravatorias que motivan sanciones
only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, penales, mas o menos severas. La lesion causada por delito o falta en los
include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it derechos civiles, requiere restituciones, reparaciones o indemnizaciones,
should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, que cual la pena misma atañen al orden publico; por tal motivo vienen
such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the game laws, encomendadas, de ordinario, al Ministerio Fiscal; y claro es que si por esta
infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. (See Colin and Capitant, via se enmiendan los quebrantos y menoscabos, el agraviado excusa
"Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil," Vol. 3, p. 728.) procurar el ya conseguido desagravio; pero esta eventual coincidencia de
los efectos, no borra la diversidad originaria de las acciones civiles para
pedir indemnizacion.
Let us now ascertain what some jurists say on the separate existence of quasi-
delicts and the employer's primary and direct liability under article 1903 of the Civil
Code. Estas, para el caso actual (prescindiendo de culpas contractuales, que no
vendrian a cuento y que tiene otro regimen), dimanan, segun el articulo
1902 del Codigo Civil, de toda accion u omision, causante de daños o
Dorado Montero in his essay on "Responsibilidad" in the "Enciclopedia Juridica
perjuicios, en que intervenga culpa o negligencia. Es trivial que acciones
Española" (Vol. XXVII, p. 414) says:
semejantes son ejercitadas ante los Tribunales de lo civil cotidianamente,
sin que la Justicia punitiva tenga que mezclarse en los asuntos. Los
El concepto juridico de la responsabilidad civil abarca diversos aspectos y
articulos 18 al 21 y 121 al 128 del Codigo Penal, atentos al espiritu y a los
comprende a diferentes personas. Asi, existe una responsabilidad civil
fines sociales y politicos del mismo, desenvuelven y ordenan la materia de
propiamente dicha, que en ningun casl lleva aparejada responsabilidad
responsabilidades civiles nacidas de delito, en terminos separados del
criminal alguna, y otra que es consecuencia indeclinable de la penal que
regimen por ley comun de la culpa que se denomina aquiliana, por alusion
nace de todo delito o falta."
a precedentes legislativos del Corpus Juris. Seria intempestivo un paralelo
entre aquellas ordenaciones, y la de la obligacion de indemnizar a titulo de
The juridical concept of civil responsibility has various aspects and culpa civil; pero viene al caso y es necesaria una de las diferenciaciones
comprises different persons. Thus, there is a civil responsibility, properly que en el tal paralelo se notarian.
speaking, which in no case carries with it any criminal responsibility, and
another which is a necessary consequence of the penal liability as a result
Los articulos 20 y 21 del Codigo Penal, despues de distribuir a su modo las
of every felony or misdemeanor."
responsabilidades civiles, entre los que sean por diversos conceptos
culpables del delito o falta, las hacen extensivas a las empresas y los
Maura, an outstanding authority, was consulted on the following case: There had establecimientos al servicio de los cuales estan los delincuentes; pero con
been a collision between two trains belonging respectively to the Ferrocarril caracter subsidiario, o sea, segun el texto literal, en defecto de los que sean
Cantabrico and the Ferrocarril del Norte. An employee of the latter had been responsables criminalmente. No coincide en ello el Codigo Civil, cuyo
prosecuted in a criminal case, in which the company had been made a party as articulo 1903, dice; La obligacion que impone el articulo anterior es
subsidiarily responsible in civil damages. The employee had been acquitted in the exigible, no solo por los actos y omisiones propios, sino por los de aquellas
criminal case, and the employer, the Ferrocarril del Norte, had also been personas de quienes se debe responder; personas en la enumeracion de las
exonerated. The question asked was whether the Ferrocarril Cantabrico could still cuales figuran los dependientes y empleados de los establecimientos o
bring a civil action for damages against the Ferrocarril del Norte. Maura's opinion empresas, sea por actos del servicio, sea con ocasion de sus funciones. Por
was in the affirmative, stating in part (Maura, Dictamenes, Vol. 6, pp. 511-513): esto acontece, y se observa en la jurisprudencia, que las empresas,
despues de intervenir en las causas criminales con el caracter subsidiario to 128 of the Penal Code, bearing in mind the spirit and the social and
de su responsabilidad civil por razon del delito, son demandadas y political purposes of that Code, develop and regulate the matter of civil
condenadas directa y aisladamente, cuando se trata de la obligacion, ante responsibilities arising from a crime, separately from the regime under
los tribunales civiles. common law, of culpa which is known as aquiliana, in accordance with
legislative precedent of the Corpus Juris. It would be unwarranted to make
Siendo como se ve, diverso el titulo de esta obligacion, y formando a detailed comparison between the former provisions and that regarding
verdadero postulado de nuestro regimen judicial la separacion entre the obligation to indemnify on account of civil culpa; but it is pertinent and
justicia punitiva y tribunales de lo civil, de suerte que tienen unos y otros necessary to point out to one of such differences.
normas de fondo en distintos cuerpos legales, y diferentes modos de
proceder, habiendose, por añadidura, abstenido de asistir al juicio criminal Articles 20 and 21 of the Penal Code, after distriburing in their own way
la Compañia del Ferrocarril Cantabrico, que se reservo ejercitar sus the civil responsibilities among those who, for different reasons, are guilty
acciones, parece innegable que la de indemnizacion por los daños y of felony or misdemeanor, make such civil responsibilities applicable to
perjuicios que le irrogo el choque, no estuvo sub judice ante el Tribunal del enterprises and establishments for which the guilty parties render service,
Jurado, ni fue sentenciada, sino que permanecio intacta, al pronunciarse el but with subsidiary character, that is to say, according to the wording of
fallo de 21 de marzo. Aun cuando el veredicto no hubiese sido de the Penal Code, in default of those who are criminally responsible. In this
inculpabilidad, mostrose mas arriba, que tal accion quedaba legitimamente regard, the Civil Code does not coincide because article 1903 says: "The
reservada para despues del proceso; pero al declararse que no existio obligation imposed by the next preceding article is demandable, not only
delito, ni responsabilidad dimanada de delito, materia unica sobre que for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
tenian jurisdiccion aquellos juzgadores, se redobla el motivo para la another is responsible." Among the persons enumerated are the
obligacion civil ex lege, y se patentiza mas y mas que la accion para pedir subordinates and employees of establishments or enterprises, either for
su cumplimiento permanece incolume, extraña a la cosa juzgada. acts during their service or on the occasion of their functions. It is for this
reason that it happens, and it is so observed in judicial decisions, that the
As things are, apropos of the reality pure and simple of the facts, it seems companies or enterprises, after taking part in the criminal cases because of
less tenable that there should be res judicata with regard to the civil their subsidiary civil responsibility by reason of the crime, are sued and
obligation for damages on account of the losses caused by the collision of sentenced directly and separately with regard to the obligation, before the
the trains. The title upon which the action for reparation is based cannot civil courts.
be confused with the civil responsibilities born of a crime, because there
exists in the latter, whatever each nature, a culpa surrounded with Seeing that the title of this obligation is different, and the separation
aggravating aspects which give rise to penal measures that are more or between punitive justice and the civil courts being a true postulate of our
less severe. The injury caused by a felony or misdemeanor upon civil rights judicial system, so that they have different fundamental norms in different
requires restitutions, reparations, or indemnifications which, like the codes, as well as different modes of procedure, and inasmuch as the
penalty itself, affect public order; for this reason, they are ordinarily Compaña del Ferrocarril Cantabrico has abstained from taking part in the
entrusted to the office of the prosecuting attorney; and it is clear that if by criminal case and has reserved the right to exercise its actions, it seems
this means the losses and damages are repaired, the injured party no undeniable that the action for indemnification for the losses and damages
longer desires to seek another relief; but this coincidence of effects does caused to it by the collision was not sub judice before the Tribunal del
not eliminate the peculiar nature of civil actions to ask for indemnity. Jurado, nor was it the subject of a sentence, but it remained intact when
the decision of March 21 was rendered. Even if the verdict had not been
Such civil actions in the present case (without referring to contractual that of acquittal, it has already been shown that such action had been
faults which are not pertinent and belong to another scope) are derived, legitimately reserved till after the criminal prosecution; but because of the
according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, from every act or omission declaration of the non-existence of the felony and the non-existence of the
causing losses and damages in which culpa or negligence intervenes. It is responsibility arising from the crime, which was the sole subject matter
unimportant that such actions are every day filed before the civil courts upon which the Tribunal del Jurado had jurisdiction, there is greater reason
without the criminal courts interfering therewith. Articles 18 to 21 and 121
 for the civil obligation ex lege, and it becomes clearer that the action for its Question No. 1. Is the responsibility declared in article 1903 for the acts or
enforcement remain intact and is not res judicata. omissions of those persons for who one is responsible, subsidiary or
principal? In order to answer this question it is necessary to know, in the
Laurent, a jurist who has written a monumental work on the French Civil Code, on first place, on what the legal provision is based. Is it true that there is a
which the Spanish Civil Code is largely based and whose provisions on cuasi- responsibility for the fault of another person? It seems so at first sight; but
delito or culpa extra-contractual are similar to those of the Spanish Civil Code, says, such assertion would be contrary to justice and to the universal maxim
referring to article 1384 of the French Civil Code which corresponds to article 1903, that all faults are personal, and that everyone is liable for those faults that
Spanish Civil Code: can be imputed to him. The responsibility in question is imposed on the
occasion of a crime or fault, but not because of the same, but because of
The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for the cuasi-delito, that is to say, the imprudence or negligence of the father,
another), without including the author of the act. The action against the guardian, proprietor or manager of the establishment, of the teacher, etc.
principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a Whenever anyone of the persons enumerated in the article referred to
prejudicial act committed by the employee, but it is not subsidiary in the (minors, incapacitated persons, employees, apprentices) causes any
sense that it can not be instituted till after the judgment against the author damage, the law presumes that the father, guardian, teacher, etc. have
of the act or at least, that it is subsidiary to the principal action; the action committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage.
for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal action. (Laurent, It is this fault that is condemned by the law. It is, therefore, only apparent
Principles of French Civil Law, Spanish translation, Vol. 20, pp. 734-735.) that there is a responsibility for the act of another; in reality the
responsibility exacted is for one's own act. The idea that such responsibility
is subsidiary is, therefore, completely inadmissible.
Amandi, in his "Cuestionario del Codigo Civil Reformado" (Vol. 4, pp. 429, 430),
declares that the responsibility of the employer is principal and not subsidiary. He
writes: Oyuelos, in his "Digesto: Principios, Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, Referentes al Codigo
Civil Español," says in Vol. VII, p. 743:
Cuestion 1. La responsabilidad declarada en el articulo 1903 por las
acciones u omisiones de aquellas personas por las que se debe responder, Es decir, no responde de hechos ajenos, porque se responde solo de su
es subsidiaria? es principal? Para contestar a esta pregunta es necesario propia culpa, doctrina del articulo 1902; mas por excepcion, se responde
saber, en primer lugar, en que se funda el precepto legal. Es que realmente de la ajena respecto de aquellas personas con las que media algun nexo o
se impone una responsabilidad por una falta ajena? Asi parece a primera vinculo, que motiva o razona la responsabilidad. Esta responsabilidad, es
vista; pero semejante afirmacion seria contraria a la justicia y a la maxima directa o es subsidiaria? En el orden penal, el Codigo de esta clase
universal, segun la que las faltas son personales, y cada uno responde de distingue entre menores e incapacitados y los demas, declarando directa la
aquellas que le son imputables. La responsabilidad de que tratamos se primera (articulo 19) y subsidiaria la segunda (articulos 20 y 21); pero en el
impone con ocasion de un delito o culpa, pero no por causa de ellos, sino orden civil, en el caso del articulo 1903, ha de entenderse directa, por el
por causa del causi delito, esto es, de la imprudencia o de la negligencia del tenor del articulo que impone la responsabilidad precisamente "por los
padre, del tutor, del dueño o director del establecimiento, del maestro, actos de aquellas personas de quienes se deba responder."
etc. Cuando cualquiera de las personas que enumera el articulo citado
(menores de edad, incapacitados, dependientes, aprendices) causan un That is to say, one is not responsible for the acts of others, because one is
daño, la ley presume que el padre, el tutor, el maestro, etc., han cometido liable only for his own faults, this being the doctrine of article 1902; but, by
una falta de negligencia para prevenir o evitar el daño. Esta falta es la que exception, one is liable for the acts of those persons with whom there is a
la ley castiga. No hay, pues, responsabilidad por un hecho ajeno, sino en la bond or tie which gives rise to the responsibility. Is this responsibility direct
apariencia; en realidad la responsabilidad se exige por un hecho propio. La or subsidiary? In the order of the penal law, the Penal Code distinguishes
idea de que esa responsabilidad sea subsidiaria es, por lo tanto, between minors and incapacitated persons on the one hand, and other
completamente inadmisible. persons on the other, declaring that the responsibility for the former is
direct (article 19), and for the latter, subsidiary (articles 20 and 21); but in
the scheme of the civil law, in the case of article 1903, the responsibility
 should be understood as direct, according to the tenor of that articles, for Considering that the first ground of the appeal is based on the mistaken
precisely it imposes responsibility "for the acts of those persons for whom supposition that the trial court, in sentencing the Compañia Madrileña to
one should be responsible." the payment of the damage caused by the death of Ramon Lafuente
Izquierdo, disregards the value and juridical effects of the sentence of
Coming now to the sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain, that court has acquittal rendered in the criminal case instituted on account of the same
upheld the principles above set forth: that a quasi-delict or culpa extra- act, when it is a fact that the two jurisdictions had taken cognizance of the
contractual is a separate and distinct legal institution, independent from the civil same act in its different aspects, and as the criminal jurisdiction declared
responsibility arising from criminal liability, and that an employer is, under article within the limits of its authority that the act in question did not constitute
1903 of the Civil Code, primarily and directly responsible for the negligent acts of a felony because there was no grave carelessness or negligence, and this
his employee. being the only basis of acquittal, it does no exclude the co-existence of
fault or negligence which is not qualified, and is a source of civil obligations
One of the most important of those Spanish decisions is that of October 21, 1910. In according to article 1902 of the Civil Code, affecting, in accordance with
that case, Ramon Lafuente died as the result of having been run over by a street car article 1903, among other persons, the managers of establishments or
owned by the "compañia Electric Madrileña de Traccion." The conductor was enterprises by reason of the damages caused by employees under certain
prosecuted in a criminal case but he was acquitted. Thereupon, the widow filed a conditions, it is manifest that the civil jurisdiccion in taking cognizance of
civil action against the street car company, paying for damages in the amount of the same act in this latter aspect and in ordering the company, appellant
15,000 pesetas. The lower court awarded damages; so the company appealed to herein, to pay an indemnity for the damage caused by one of its employees,
the Supreme Tribunal, alleging violation of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code far from violating said legal provisions, in relation with article 116 of the
because by final judgment the non-existence of fault or negligence had been Law of Criminal Procedure, strictly followed the same, without invading
declared. The Supreme Court of Spain dismissed the appeal, saying: attributes which are beyond its own jurisdiction, and without in any way
contradicting the decision in that cause. (Emphasis supplied.)
Considerando que el primer motivo del recurso se funda en el equivocado
supuesto de que el Tribunal a quo, al condonar a la compañia Electrica It will be noted, as to the case just cited:
Madrileña al pago del daño causado con la muerte de Ramon La fuente
Izquierdo, desconoce el valor y efectos juridicos de la sentencia absolutoria First. That the conductor was not sued in a civil case, either separately or with the
deictada en la causa criminal que se siguio por el mismo hecho, cuando es street car company. This is precisely what happens in the present case: the driver,
lo cierto que de este han conocido las dos jurisdicciones bajo diferentes as Fontanilla, has not been sued in a civil action, either alone or with his employer.
pectos, y como la de lo criminal declrao dentro de los limites de su
competencia que el hecho de que se trata no era constitutivo de delito por Second. That the conductor had been acquitted of grave criminal negligence, but
no haber mediado descuido o negligencia graves, lo que no excluye, siendo the Supreme Tribunal of Spain said that this did not exclude the co-existence of
este el unico fundamento del fallo absolutorio, el concurso de la culpa o fault or negligence, which is not qualified, on the part of the conductor, under
negligencia no califacadas, fuente de obligaciones civiles segun el articulo article 1902 of the Civil Code. In the present case, the taxi driver was found guilty of
1902 del Codigo, y que alcanzan, segun el 1903, netre otras perosnas, a los criminal negligence, so that if he had even sued for his civil responsibility arising
Directores de establecimientos o empresas por los daños causados por sus from the crime, he would have been held primarily liable for civil damages, and
dependientes en determinadas condiciones, es manifesto que la de lo civil, Barredo would have been held subsidiarily liable for the same. But the plaintiffs are
al conocer del mismo hehco baho este ultimo aspecto y al condenar a la directly suing Barredo, on his primary responsibility because of his own presumed
compañia recurrente a la indemnizacion del daño causado por uno de sus negligence — which he did not overcome — under article 1903. Thus, there were
empleados, lejos de infringer los mencionados textos, en relacion con el two liabilities of Barredo: first, the subsidiary one because of the civil liability of the
articulo 116 de la Ley de Enjuciamiento Criminal, se ha atenido taxi driver arising from the latter's criminal negligence; and, second, Barredo's
estrictamente a ellos, sin invadir atribuciones ajenas a su jurisdiccion primary liability as an employer under article 1903. The plaintiffs were free to
propia, ni contrariar en lo mas minimo el fallo recaido en la causa. choose which course to take, and they preferred the second remedy. In so doing,
they were acting within their rights. It might be observed in passing, that the
plaintiff choose the more expeditious and effective method of relief, because
Fontanilla was either in prison, or had just been released, and besides, he was sino que se limita a pedir la reparaction de los daños y perjuicios
probably without property which might be seized in enforcing any judgment against producidos en el patrimonio del actor por la injustificada y dolosa negativa
him for damages. del porteador a la entrega de las mercancias a su nombre consignadas,
segun lo reconoce la sentencia, y cuya responsabilidad esta claramente
Third. That inasmuch as in the above sentence of October 21, 1910, the employer sancionada en el articulo 1902 del Codigo Civil, que obliga por el siguiente
was held liable civilly, notwithstanding the acquittal of the employee (the a la Compañia demandada como ligada con el causante de aquellos por
conductor) in a previous criminal case, with greater reason should Barredo, the relaciones de caracter economico y de jurarquia administrativa.
employer in the case at bar, be held liable for damages in a civil suit filed against
him because his taxi driver had been convicted. The degree of negligence of the Considering that the sentence, in question recognizes, in virtue of the facts
conductor in the Spanish case cited was less than that of the taxi driver, Fontanilla, which it declares, in relation to the evidence in the case: (1) that the
because the former was acquitted in the previous criminal case while the latter was invoice issued by the railroad company in favor of the plaintiff
found guilty of criminal negligence and was sentenced to an indeterminate contemplated that the empty receptacles referred to in the complaint
sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional. should be returned to the consignors with wines and liquors; (2) that when
the said merchandise reached their destination, their delivery to the
(See also Sentence of February 19, 1902, which is similar to the one above quoted.) consignee was refused by the station agent without justification and
with fraudulent intent, and (3) that the lack of delivery of these goods
In the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain, dated February 14, 1919, an action when they were demanded by the plaintiff caused him losses and damages
was brought against a railroad company for damages because the station agent, of considerable importance, as he was a wholesale vendor of wines and
employed by the company, had unjustly and fraudulently, refused to deliver certain liquors and he failed to realize the profits when he was unable to fill the
articles consigned to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Spain held that this action orders sent to him by the consignors of the receptacles:
was properly under article 1902 of the Civil Code, the court saying:
Considering that upon this basis there is need of upholding the four
Considerando que la sentencia discutida reconoce, en virtud de los hechos assignments of error, as the original complaint did not contain any cause of
que consigna con relacion a las pruebas del pleito: 1.º, que las action arising from non-fulfillment of a contract of transportation, because
expediciones facturadas por la compañia ferroviaria a la consignacion del the action was not based on the delay of the goods nor on any contractual
actor de las vasijas vacias que en su demanda relacionan tenian como fin el relation between the parties litigant and, therefore, article 371 of the Code
que este las devolviera a sus remitentes con vinos y alcoholes; 2.º, que of Commerce, on which the decision appealed from is based, is not
llegadas a su destino tales mercanias no se quisieron entregar a dicho applicable; but it limits to asking for reparation for losses and damages
consignatario por el jefe de la estacion sin motivo justificado y con produced on the patrimony of the plaintiff on account of the unjustified
intencion dolosa, y 3.º, que la falta de entrega de estas expediciones al and fraudulent refusal of the carrier to deliver the goods consigned to the
tiempo de reclamarlas el demandante le originaron daños y perjuicios en plaintiff as stated by the sentence, and the carrier's responsibility is clearly
cantidad de bastante importancia como expendedor al por mayor que era laid down in article 1902 of the Civil Code which binds, in virtue of the next
de vinos y alcoholes por las ganancias que dejo de obtener al verse privado article, the defendant company, because the latter is connected with the
de servir los pedidos que se le habian hecho por los remitentes en los person who caused the damage by relations of economic character and by
envases: administrative hierarchy. (Emphasis supplied.)

Considerando que sobre esta base hay necesidad de estimar los cuatro The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come under
motivos que integran este recurso, porque la demanda inicial del pleito a both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action of the agent was
que se contrae no contiene accion que nazca del incumplimiento del unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal
contrato de transporte, toda vez que no se funda en el retraso de la action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article
llegada de las mercancias ni de ningun otro vinculo contractual entre las 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the
partes contendientes, careciendo, por tanto, de aplicacion el articulo 371 employee who was being sued.
del Codigo de Comercio, en que principalmente descansa el fallo recurrido,
Let us now examine the cases previously decided by this Court. "The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the
persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the
In the leading case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil., 359, 362-365 diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."
[year 1907]), the trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff, a laborer of the
defendant, because the latter had negligently failed to repair a tramway in As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it may be
consequence of which the rails slid off while iron was being transported, and caught sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the employer
the plaintiff whose leg was broken. This Court held: penalized for failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for his
workmen. His obligation therefore is one 'not punished by the laws' and
It is contended by the defendant, as its first defense to the action that the falls under civil rather than criminal jurisprudence. But the answer may be
necessary conclusion from these collated laws is that the remedy for a broader one. We should be reluctant, under any conditions, to adopt a
injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action in which the forced construction of these scientific codes, such as is proposed by the
official criminally responsible must be made primarily liable and his defendant, that would rob some of these articles of effect, would shut out
employer held only subsidiarily to him. According to this theory the litigants against their will from the civil courts, would make the assertion of
plaintiff should have procured the arrest of the representative of the their rights dependent upon the selection for prosecution of the proper
company accountable for not repairing the track, and on his prosecution a criminal offender, and render recovery doubtful by reason of the strict
suitable fine should have been imposed, payable primarily by him and rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if these articles had
secondarily by his employer. always stood alone, such a construction would be unnecessary, but clear
light is thrown upon their meaning by the provisions of the Law of Criminal
This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes upon this Procedure of Spain (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), which, though never
subject. Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes obligations arising from faults in actual force in these Islands, was formerly given a suppletory or
or negligence not punished by the law, subject to the provisions of Chapter explanatory effect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action,
II of Title XVI. Section 1902 of that chapter reads: civil and criminal, might be prosecuted jointly or separately, but while the
penal action was pending the civil was suspended. According to article 112,
the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought therewith,
"A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another
unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserved
when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the
by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the civil action alone was
damage so done.
prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced only on private
complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. These
"SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceeding article is
provisions are in harmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal
demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also
Code on the same subject.
for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.
An examination of this topic might be carried much further, but the
"The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable
citation of these articles suffices to show that the civil liability was not
for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.
intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby,
except as expressly provided in the law. Where an individual is civilly liable
xxx xxx xxx for a negligent act or omission, it is not required that the injured party
should seek out a third person criminally liable whose prosecution must be
"Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.
equally liable for the damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or in Under article 20 of the Penal Code the responsibility of an employer may
the performance of their duties. be regarded as subsidiary in respect of criminal actions against his
employees only while they are in process of prosecution, or in so far as
xxx xxx xxx they determine the existence of the criminal act from which liability arises,
 and his obligation under the civil law and its enforcement in the civil courts the speed of the auto which he was operating until he had fully crossed
is not barred thereby unless by the election of the injured person. Real Street and had completely reached a clear way on Solana Street. But,
Inasmuch as no criminal proceeding had been instituted, growing our of as the child was run over by the auto precisely at the entrance of Solana
the accident in question, the provisions of the Penal Code can not affect Street, this accident could not have occurred if the auto had been running
this action. This construction renders it unnecessary to finally determine at a slow speed, aside from the fact that the defendant, at the moment of
here whether this subsidiary civil liability in penal actions has survived the crossing Real Street and entering Solana Street, in a northward direction,
laws that fully regulated it or has been abrogated by the American civil and could have seen the child in the act of crossing the latter street from the
criminal procedure now in force in the Philippines. sidewalk on the right to that on the left, and if the accident had occurred in
such a way that after the automobile had run over the body of the child,
The difficulty in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case and the child's body had already been stretched out on the ground, the
appears from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of automobile still moved along a distance of about 2 meters, this
the words of article 1093, "fault or negligence not punished by law," as circumstance shows the fact that the automobile entered Solana Street
applied to the comprehensive definition of offenses in articles 568 and 590 from Real Street, at a high speed without the defendant having blown the
of the Penal Code. It has been shown that the liability of an employer horn. If these precautions had been taken by the defendant, the
arising out of his relation to his employee who is the offender is not to be deplorable accident which caused the death of the child would not have
regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within the occurred.
meaning of articles 1902 and 1093. More than this, however, it cannot be
said to fall within the class of acts unpunished by the law, the consequence It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted
of which are regulated by articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. The acts in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of the child was
to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those not punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of
growing out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where negligence being a proper subject-matter either of a criminal action with its
relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and
contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code.
articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the same code. A typical application of Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate individually of a cuasi-delito or culpa
this distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with
due to defective machinery supplied by the employer. His liability to his regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and
employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have
passengers out of the contract for passage, while that to the injured been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.
bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.
Years later (in 1930) this Court had another occasion to apply the same doctrine.
In Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil., 821 (year 1918), the mother of the 8 of 9-year- In Bernal and Enverso vs. House and Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd., 54 Phil., 327,
old child Salvador Bona brought a civil action against Moreta to recover damages the parents of the five-year-old child, Purificacion Bernal, brought a civil action to
resulting from the death of the child, who had been run over by an automobile recover damages for the child's death as a result of burns caused by the fault and
driven and managed by the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment requiring negligence of the defendants. On the evening of April 10, 1925, the Good Friday
the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000 as indemnity: This Court in procession was held in Tacloban, Leyte. Fortunata Enverso with her daughter
affirming the judgment, said in part: Purificacion Bernal had come from another municipality to attend the same. After
the procession the mother and the daughter with two others were passing along
If it were true that the defendant, in coming from the southern part of Gran Capitan Street in front of the offices of the Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant, Ltd.,
Solana Street, had to stop his auto before crossing Real Street, because he owned by defendants J. V. House, when an automobile appeared from the opposite
had met vehicles which were going along the latter street or were coming direction. The little girl, who was slightly ahead of the rest, was so frightened by the
from the opposite direction along Solana Street, it is to be believed that, automobile that she turned to run, but unfortunately she fell into the street gutter
when he again started to run his auto across said Real Street and to where hot water from the electric plant was flowing. The child died that same night
continue its way along Solana Street northward, he should have adjusted from the burns. The trial courts dismissed the action because of the contributory
negligence of the plaintiffs. But this Court held, on appeal, that there was no licensed by the Government in their particular calling, and apparently
contributory negligence, and allowed the parents P1,000 in damages from J. V. thoroughly competent. The machine had been used but a few hours when
House who at the time of the tragic occurrence was the holder of the franchise for the accident occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant
the electric plant. This Court said in part: had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the defective condition of
the steering gear.
Although the trial judge made the findings of fact hereinbefore outlined,
he nevertheless was led to order the dismissal of the action because of the The legal aspect of the case was discussed by this Court thus:
contributory negligence of the plaintiffs. It is from this point that a majority
of the court depart from the stand taken by the trial judge. The mother Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only establishes liability in cases of
and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of Tacloban, negligence, but also provides when the liability shall cease. It says:
Leyte, on the evening when the religious procession was held. There was
nothing abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance "The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the
of the mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the
appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into a ditch filled diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage."
with hot water. The doctrine announced in the much debated case of
Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. ([1907]), 7 Phil., 359), still rule.
From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused
Article 1902 of the Civil Code must again be enforced. The contributory
by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a
negligence of the child and her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the matter or
recovery, but in its strictest sense could only result in reduction of the
employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in
damages.
supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that presumption
is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted.
It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court specifically applied article It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the
1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus that although J. V. House could have been court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and
criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only punished but diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he
also made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court is relieve from liability.
awarded damages in an independent civil action for fault or negligence under
article 1902 of the Civil Code.
This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on his own
negligence and not on that of his servant.
In Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes (30 Phil., 624 [year 1915), the action was for
damages for the death of the plaintiff's daughter alleged to have been caused by
The doctrine of the case just cited was followed by this Court in Cerf vs. Medel (33
the negligence of the servant in driving an automobile over the child. It appeared
Phil., 37 [year 1915]). In the latter case, the complaint alleged that the defendant's
that the cause of the mishap was a defect in the steering gear. The defendant
servant had so negligently driven an automobile, which was operated by defendant
Leynes had rented the automobile from the International Garage of Manila, to be
as a public vehicle, that said automobile struck and damaged the plaintiff's
used by him in carrying passengers during the fiesta of Tuy, Batangas. Leynes was
motorcycle. This Court, applying article 1903 and following the rule in Bahia vs.
ordered by the lower court to pay P1,000 as damages to the plaintiff. On appeal this
Litonjua and Leynes, said in part (p. 41) that:
Court reversed the judgment as to Leynes on the ground that he had shown that
the exercised the care of a good father of a family, thus overcoming the
The master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant where he is the
presumption of negligence under article 1903. This Court said:
owner or director of a business or enterprise and the negligent acts are
committed while the servant is engaged in his master's employment as
As to selection, the defendant has clearly shown that he exercised the care
such owner.
and diligence of a good father of a family. He obtained the machine from a
reputable garage and it was, so far as appeared, in good condition. The
Another case which followed the decision in Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes was
workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage, were duly
Cuison vs. Norton & Harrison Co., 55 Phil., 18 (year 1930). The latter case was an
action for damages brought by Cuison for the death of his seven-year-old son obtain payment, claiming that the defendant was subsidiarily liable. The main
Moises. The little boy was on his way to school with his sister Marciana. Some large defense was that the defendant had exercised the diligence of a good father of a
pieces of lumber fell from a truck and pinned the boy underneath, instantly killing family to prevent the damage. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the
him. Two youths, Telesforo Binoya and Francisco Bautista, who were working for plaintiff. This Court held, in part, that this case was governed by the Penal Code,
Ora, an employee of defendant Norton & Harrison Co., pleaded guilty to the crime saying:
of homicide through reckless negligence and were sentenced accordingly. This
Court, applying articles 1902 and 1903, held: With this preliminary point out of the way, there is no escaping the
conclusion that the provisions of the Penal Code govern. The Penal Code in
The basis of civil law liability is not respondent superior but the relationship easily understandable language authorizes the determination of subsidiary
of pater familias. This theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on liability. The Civil Code negatives its application by providing that civil
his own negligence and not on that of his servant. (Bahia vs.Litonjua and obligations arising from crimes or misdemeanors shall be governed by the
Leynes [1915], 30 Phil., 624; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. [1918], 38 provisions of the Penal Code. The conviction of the motorman was a
Phil., 768.) misdemeanor falling under article 604 of the Penal Code. The act of the
motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or omission not punishable
In Walter A. Smith & Co. vs. Cadwallader Gibson Lumber Co., 55 Phil., 517 (year by law. Accordingly, the civil obligation connected up with the Penal Code
1930) the plaintiff brought an action for damages for the demolition of its wharf, and not with article 1903 of the Civil Code. In other words, the Penal Code
which had been struck by the steamer Helen C belonging to the defendant. This affirms its jurisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its jurisdiction. This is
Court held (p. 526): a case of criminal negligence out of which civil liability arises and not a case
of civil negligence.
The evidence shows that Captain Lasa at the time the plaintiff's wharf
collapsed was a duly licensed captain, authorized to navigate and direct a xxx xxx xxx
vessel of any tonnage, and that the appellee contracted his services
because of his reputation as a captain, according to F. C. Cadwallader. This Our deduction, therefore, is that the case relates to the Penal Code and
being so, we are of the opinion that the presumption of liability against the not to the Civil Code. Indeed, as pointed out by the trial judge, any
defendant has been overcome by the exercise of the care and diligence of different ruling would permit the master to escape scot-free by simply
a good father of a family in selecting Captain Lasa, in accordance with the alleging and proving that the master had exercised all diligence in the
doctrines laid down by this court in the cases cited above, and the selection and training of its servants to prevent the damage. That would be
defendant is therefore absolved from all liability. a good defense to a strictly civil action, but might or might not be to a civil
action either as a part of or predicated on conviction for a crime or
It is, therefore, seen that the defendant's theory about his secondary liability is misdemeanor. (By way of parenthesis, it may be said further that the
negatived by the six cases above set forth. He is, on the authority of these cases, statements here made are offered to meet the argument advanced during
primarily and directly responsible in damages under article 1903, in relation to our deliberations to the effect that article 0902 of the Civil Code should be
article 1902, of the Civil Code. disregarded and codal articles 1093 and 1903 applied.)

Let us now take up the Philippine decisions relied upon by the defendant. We study It is not clear how the above case could support the defendant's proposition,
first, City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil., 586 (year 1928). A collision because the Court of Appeals based its decision in the present case on the
between a truck of the City of Manila and a street car of the Manila Electric Co. took defendant's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code and not on
place on June 8, 1925. The truck was damaged in the amount of P1,788.27. Sixto his subsidiary liability arising from Fontanilla's criminal negligence. In other words,
Eustaquio, the motorman, was prosecuted for the crime of damage to property and the case of City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., supra, is predicated on an entirely
slight injuries through reckless imprudence. He was found guilty and sentenced to different theory, which is the subsidiary liability of an employer arising from a
pay a fine of P900, to indemnify the City of Manila for P1,788.27, with subsidiary criminal act of his employee, whereas the foundation of the decision of the Court of
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Unable to collect the indemnity from Appeals in the present case is the employer's primary liability under article 1903 of
Eustaquio, the City of Manila filed an action against the Manila Electric Company to the Civil Code. We have already seen that this is a proper and independent remedy.
Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil., 75), is another case invoked by the this case the defendant-petitioner — is primarily and directly liable under article
defendant. A motorman in the employ of the Manila Electric Company had been 1903 of the Civil Code.
convicted o homicide by simple negligence and sentenced, among other things, to
pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P1,000. An action was then brought to The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should ordinarily be
enforce the subsidiary liability of the defendant as employer under the Penal Code. sufficient to dispose of this case. But inasmuch as we are announcing doctrines that
The defendant attempted to show that it had exercised the diligence of a good have been little understood in the past, it might not be inappropriate to indicate
father of a family in selecting the motorman, and therefore claimed exemption their foundations.
from civil liability. But this Court held:
Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also
In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold, (1) simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code
that the exemption from civil liability established in article 1903 of the Civil refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import
Code for all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family, of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have
is not applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in article 20 of the very little scope and application in actual life. Death or injury to persons and
Penal Code. damage to property through any degree of negligence — even the slightest —
would have to be indemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from
The above case is also extraneous to the theory of the defendant in the instant a crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-
case, because the action there had for its purpose the enforcement of the delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the lawmaker any intention to
defendant's subsidiary liability under the Penal Code, while in the case at bar, the bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we, in the interpretation
plaintiff's cause of action is based on the defendant's primary and direct of the laws, disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather than the spirit that
responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code. In fact, the above case destroys giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning of the law to smother and render
the defendant's contention because that decision illustrates the principle that the almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development
employer's primary responsibility under article 1903 of the Civil Code is different in as culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring in articles
character from his subsidiary liability under the Penal Code. 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code.

In trying to apply the two cases just referred to, counsel for the defendant has Secondly, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
failed to recognize the distinction between civil liability arising from a crime, which reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is
is governed by the Penal Code, and the responsibility for cuasi-delito or culpa sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of
aquiliana under the Civil Code, and has likewise failed to give the importance to the criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be
latter type of civil action. proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and
should be made responsible in a civil action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil
The defendant-petitioner also cites Francisco vs. Onrubia (46 Phil., 327). That case Code. Otherwise, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi
need not be set forth. Suffice it to say that the question involved was also civil jus ibi remedium.
liability arising from a crime. Hence, it is as inapplicable as the two cases above
discussed. Thirdly, to hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective,
and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first, would be
The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate individuality of cuasi- tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome
delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a method of obtaining relief. True, there is such a remedy under our laws, but there is
distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the also a more expeditious way, which is based on the primary and direct
Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of responsibility of the defendant under article 1903 of the Civil Code. Our view of the
the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability law is more likely to facilitate remedy for civil wrongs, because the procedure
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or indicated by the defendant is wasteful and productive of delay, it being a matter of
negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely, the common knowledge that professional drivers of taxis and similar public conveyance
authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer — in usually do not have sufficient means with which to pay damages. Why, then, should
the plaintiff be required in all cases to go through this roundabout, unnecessary, action, not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal
and probably useless procedure? In construing the laws, courts have endeavored to prosecution, and entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more
shorten and facilitate the pathways of right and justice. likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress.

At this juncture, it should be said that the primary and direct responsibility of In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be and is
employers and their presumed negligence are principles calculated to protect hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendant-petitioner.
society. Workmen and employees should be carefully chosen and supervised in
order to avoid injury to the public. It is the masters or employers who principally
reap the profits resulting from the services of these servants and employees. It is
but right that they should guarantee the latter's careful conduct for the personnel
and patrimonial safety of others. As Theilhard has said, "they should reproach
themselves, at least, some for their weakness, others for their poor selection and all
for their negligence." And according to Manresa, "It is much more equitable and
just that such responsibility should fall upon the principal or director who could
have chosen a careful and prudent employee, and not upon the injured person who
could not exercise such selection and who used such employee because of his
confidence in the principal or director." (Vol. 12, p. 622, 2nd Ed.) Many jurists also
base this primary responsibility of the employer on the principle of representation
of the principal by the agent. Thus, Oyuelos says in the work already cited (Vol. 7, p.
747) that before third persons the employer and employee "vienen a ser como una
sola personalidad, por refundicion de la del dependiente en la de quien le emplea y
utiliza." ("become as one personality by the merging of the person of the employee
in that of him who employs and utilizes him.") All these observations acquire a
peculiar force and significance when it comes to motor accidents, and there is need
of stressing and accentuating the responsibility of owners of motor vehicles.

Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and
the Civil Code on this subject, which has given rise to the overlapping or
concurrence of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the
character and efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a
common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising
from a crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by invoking articles
1902-1910 of the Civil Code. Although this habitual method is allowed by our laws,
it has nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more expeditious
and effective remedy based on culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual. In the
present case, we are asked to help perpetuate this usual course. But we believe it is
high time we pointed out to the harm done by such practice and to restore the
principle of responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 et seq. of the
Civil Code to its full rigor. It is high time we caused the stream of quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana to flow on its own natural channel, so that its waters may no
longer be diverted into that of a crime under the Penal Code. This will, it is believed,
make for the better safeguarding of private rights because it re-establishes an
ancient and additional remedy, and for the further reason that an independent civil
PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito the arguments therein contained, the Court finds the same to be
Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants, meritorious and well-founded.
vs.
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian of said WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court on December 8, 1964 is
minor, defendants-appellees. hereby reconsidered by ordering the dismissal of the above
entitled case.
Cruz & Avecilla for appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Marvin R. Hill & Associates for appellees.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 29, 1965. (p. 40, Record [p. 21,
BARREDO, J.: Record on Appeal.)

Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dated January Hence, this appeal where plaintiffs-appellants, the spouses Elcano, are presenting
29, 1965 in Civil Case No. Q-8102, Pedro Elcano et al. vs. Reginald Hill et al. for Our resolution the following assignment of errors:
dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants, the complaint of plaintiffs for
recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY
the occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was living UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS THAT -
and getting subsistence, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs,
named Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said accused was I
acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to
kill, coupled with mistake."
THE PRESENT ACTION IS NOT ONLY AGAINST BUT ALSO A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1, RULE 107, NOW RULE 111, OF THE
Actually, the motion to dismiss based on the following grounds: REVISED RULES OF COURT, AND THAT SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111,
RULES OF COURT IS APPLICABLE;
1. The present action is not only against but a violation of section
1, Rule 107, which is now Rule III, of the Revised Rules of Court; II

2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is now final and THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT WHICH IS NOW
or in res-adjudicata; FINAL OR RES-ADJUDICTA;

3. The complaint had no cause of action against defendant Marvin III

Hill, because he was relieved as guardian of the other defendant
through emancipation by marriage.
THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASI-DELICTS, ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF
THE CIVIL CODE, ARE INAPPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE; and
(P. 23, Record [p. 4, Record on Appeal.])
IV
was first denied by the trial court. It was only upon motion for reconsideration of
the defendants of such denial, reiterating the above grounds that the following
THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
order was issued:
DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED AS
GUARDIAN OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT THROUGH
Considering the motion for reconsideration filed by the EMANCIPATION BY MARRIAGE. (page 4, Record.)
defendants on January 14, 1965 and after thoroughly examining
It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants, defendant- the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is
appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in Criminal Case No. 5102 of the therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a
Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due trial, he was acquitted on the proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its
ground that his act was not criminal because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely
mistake." Parenthetically, none of the parties has favored Us with a copy of the separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence
decision of acquittal, presumably because appellants do not dispute that such under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the
indeed was the basis stated in the court's decision. And so, when appellants filed separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, under
their complaint against appellees Reginald and his father, Atty. Marvin Hill, on the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with
account of the death of their son, the appellees filed the motion to dismiss above- regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have
referred to. been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which,
after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil
As We view the foregoing background of this case, the two decisive issues liability arising from his crime. (p. 617, 73 Phil.) 2
presented for Our resolution are:
It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court
1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus that
criminal case wherein the action for civil liability, was not reversed? although J. V. House could have been criminally prosecuted for
reckless or simple negligence and not only punished but also
2. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code he applied against made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless
Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence this Court awarded damages in an independent civil action for
complained of. Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistenee from fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. (p. 618, 73
his father, was already legally married? Phil.) 3

The first issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should
further clarification of the dual character, criminal and civil, of fault or negligence as ordinarily be sufficient to dispose of this case. But inasmuch as we
a source of obligation which was firmly established in this jurisdiction in Barredo vs. are announcing doctrines that have been little understood, in the
Garcia, 73 Phil. 607. In that case, this Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly past, it might not he inappropriate to indicate their foundations.
dissertation by Justice Bocobo on the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa
criminal or delito and mere culpa or fault, with pertinent citation of decisions of the Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in articles 365 punishes not only
Supreme Court of Spain, the works of recognized civilians, and earlier jurisprudence reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that
of our own, that the same given act can result in civil liability not only under the articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or
Penal Code but also under the Civil Code. Thus, the opinion holds: negligence not punished by law, accordingly to the literal import
of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa
The, above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual
machinist. come under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In life. Death or injury to persons and damage to property- through
that case, the action of the agent killeth unjustified and any degree of negligence - even the slightest - would have to be
fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of a Idemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from a
criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain
a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to be for cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the
noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was lawmaker any intention to bring about a situation so absurd and
being sued. (pp. 615-616, 73 Phil.). 1 anomalous. Nor are we, in the interpretation of the laws,
disposed to uphold the letter that killeth rather than the spirit
that giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning of the law to
It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have
smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient
been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing
 origin and such full-grown development as culpa Civil Code therein referred to contemplate only acts of negligence and not
aquiliana or cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring intentional voluntary acts - deeper reflection would reveal that the thrust of the
in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code. pronouncements therein is not so limited, but that in fact it actually extends to fault
or culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein to the Sentence of the
Secondary, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of Supreme Court of Spain of February 14, 1919, supra, which involved a case of fraud
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, or estafa, not a negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain, in
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant force here at the time of Garcia, provided textually that obligations "which are
pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law,
which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be intervene shall be the subject of Chapter II, Title XV of this book (which refers to
proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the quasi-delicts.)" And it is precisely the underline qualification, "not punishable by
defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action law", that Justice Bocobo emphasized could lead to an ultimo construction or
under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise. there interpretation of the letter of the law that "killeth, rather than the spirit that giveth
would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus lift- hence, the ruling that "(W)e will not use the literal meaning of the law to
Idemnified remedium." (p. 620,73 Phil.) smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such full-
grown development as culpa aquiliana or quasi-delito, which is conserved and
Fourthly, because of the broad sweep of the provisions of both made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code." And so, because
the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject, which has given Justice Bacobo was Chairman of the Code Commission that drafted the original text
rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already of the new Civil Code, it is to be noted that the said Code, which was enacted after
discussed, and for lack of understanding of the character and the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term, 11 not punishable by law," thereby
efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal
common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil in character or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or matter. Thus, the
responsibility arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another corresponding provisions to said Article 1093 in the new code, which is Article 1162,
remedy, which is by invoking articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. simply says, "Obligations derived from quasi-delicto shall be governed by the
Although this habitual method is allowed by, our laws, it has provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, (on quasi-delicts) and by special
nevertheless rendered practically useless and nugatory the more laws." More precisely, a new provision, Article 2177 of the new code provides:
expeditious and effective remedy based on culpa aquiliana or
culpa extra-contractual. In the present case, we are asked to help ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
perpetuate this usual course. But we believe it is high time we preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
pointed out to the harms done by such practice and to restore the liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
principle of responsibility for fault or negligence under articles plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
1902 et seq. of the Civil Code to its full rigor. It is high time we omission of the defendant.
caused the stream of quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana to flow on its
own natural channel, so that its waters may no longer be diverted According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177) through
into that of a crime under the Penal Code. This will, it is believed, at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact
make for the better safeguarding or private rights because it nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law,
realtor, an ancient and additional remedy, and for the further while the latter is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always
reason that an independent civil action, not depending on the had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such
issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extracontractual" or "cuasi-
entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more delito" has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and
likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress. (p. 621, 73 Phil.) maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish
jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of
Contrary to an immediate impression one might get upon a reading of the foregoing criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a
excerpts from the opinion in Garcia that the concurrence of the Penal Code and the subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for
damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a "(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
double recovery.", (Report of the Code) Commission, p. 162.) authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer his
property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or
Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian.
negligence, the same argument of Justice Bacobo about construction that upholds He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or
"the spirit that giveth lift- rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of guardian."
the lawmaker should be observed in applying the same. And considering that the
preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely establishes Now under Article 2180, "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable
the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
character (under Articles 29 to 32) from the civil responsibility arising from crime one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
fixed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court, are responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
under Sections 2 and 3 (c), Rule 111, contemplate also the same separability, it is responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
"more congruent with the spirit of law, equity and justice, and more in harmony company." In the instant case, it is not controverted that Reginald, although
with modern progress"- to borrow the felicitous relevant language in Rakes vs. married, was living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of
Atlantic. Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359, to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176, the occurrence in question. Factually, therefore, Reginald was still subservient to
where it refers to "fault or negligencia covers not only acts "not punishable by law" and dependent on his father, a situation which is not unusual.
but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided and solidary liability of presuncion with their offending child under Article 2180 is
that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to that is the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to prevent them from causing damage to third persons. 5 On the other hand, the clear
the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In implication of Article 399, in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage may
other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule not, nevertheless, sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents, is that such
111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do any
Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only act that can give rise to judicial litigation. (See Manresa, Id., Vol. II, pp. 766-767,
and not as a crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case 776.) And surely, killing someone else invites judicial action. Otherwise stated, the
that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that
accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of money
aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.4 and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their
minor married child without their consent. (Art. 399; Manresa, supra.)
It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not
extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill
instant action against him. notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. However, inasmuch as
it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty.
Coming now to the second issue about the effect of Reginald's emancipation by Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.
marriage on the possible civil liability of Atty. Hill, his father, it is also Our
considered opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is already free WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the trial court is ordered to
from responsibility cannot be upheld. proceed in accordance with the foregoing opinion. Costs against appellees.

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
 CANDIDA VIRATA, TOMAS VIRATA, MANOLITO VIRATA, EDERLINDA VIRATA, Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission
NAPOLEON VIRATA, ARACELY VIRATA, ZENAIDA VIRATA, LUZMINDA VIRATA, punishable by law are two different sources of obligation. Moreover, to prevail in
PACITA VIRATA, and EVANGELINA VIRATA, Petitioners, v. VICTORIO OCHOA, the action for damages, plaintiff have only be establish its cause of action by
MAXIMO BORILLA and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, 7th JUDICIAL preponderance of evidence.
DISTRICT, BRANCH V, stationed at BACOOR, CAVITE, Respondents.

Remulla, Estrella & Associates, for Petitioners. DECISION

Exequil C. Masangkay for Respondents.

FERNANDEZ, J.:
SYNOPSIS

A criminal action for reckless imprudence was filed against a driver of a jeepney. This is an appeal by certiorari, from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Before the criminal case could be decided, the heirs of the victim manifested that Cavite, Branch V, in Civil Case No. B-134 granting the motion of the defendants to
they were filing and they so did file a separate civil action for damages against the dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending between
owner and the driver of the jeepney based on quasi-delict. The driver was the same parties for the same cause 1
subsequently acquitted of the crime charge. The defendants in the civil case then
moved to dismiss the same, which motion the trial court granted. The record shows that on September 24, 1975 one Arsenio Virata died as a result of
having been bumped while walking along Taft Avenue, Pasay City by a passenger
The principal issue before the Supreme Court is whether the heirs of the victim can jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla and registered in the name of Victorio Ochoa;
prosecute an action for damages based on quasi-delict against the driver and that Borilla is the employee driver of Ochoa; that for the death of Arsenio Virata, a
owner. criminal action for homicide through reckless imprudence was instituted on
September 25, 1975 against Maximo Borilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal at
The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the driver of the crime charged is not Pasay City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3162-P of said court; that at the hearing
a bar to the prosecution of a civil case for damages based on quasi-delict. of the said criminal case on December 12, 1975, Atty. Julio Francisco, the private
prosecutor, made a reservation to face a separate civil action for damages against
Order of dismissal set aside and case remanded to the lower court for further the driver on his criminal liability; that on February 19, 1976 Atty. Julio Francisco
proceedings. filed a motion in said criminal case to withdraw the reservation to file a separate
civil action; that thereafter, the private prosecutor actively participated in the trial
and presented evidence on the damages; that on June 29, 1976 the heirs of Arsenio
SYLLABUS Virata again reserved their right to institute in separate civil action; that on July 29,
1977 the heirs of Arsenio Virata, petitioners herein, commenced Civil No. B-134 in
the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor, Branch V, for damages based on
1. ACTIONS; CULPA AQUILIANA; AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY FILE SEPARATE ACTION quasi-delict against the driver Maximo Borilla and the registered owner of the
BASED ON CULPA AQUILIANA. — In negligence cases the aggrieved parties may jeepney, Victorio Ochoa; that on August 13, 1976 the defendants, private
choose between an action under the Revised Penal Code or for quasi-delict under respondents herein, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there is another
Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2177 action, Criminal Case No. 3162-P, pending between the same parties for the same
of the Civil Code is to recover twice for the same negligent act. cause; that on September 8, 1976 the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasay City
rendered in decision in Criminal Case No. 3612-P acquitting the accused, Maximo
2. ID.; ID.; ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED NOT A BAR TO PROSECUTION FOR DAMAGES Borilla, on the ground that he caused an injury by mere accident; and that on
BASED ON QUASI-DELICT. — The acquittal of the accused of the crime of homicide January 31, 1977, the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor granted the motion
through reckless imprudence is not a bar to the prosecution of a civil case for to dismiss Civil Case No. B-134 for damages 2
damages based on quasi-delict. The source of obligation sought to be enforced in
the civil action is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under The principal issue is whether or not the petitioners, heirs of the deceased Arsenio
Virata, can prosecute an action for damages based on quasi-delict against Maximo the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In
Borilla and Victorio Ochoa, driver and owner, respectively of the passenger jeepney other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par (e) of Section 3, Rule
that bumped Arsenio Virata. 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only
It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case
action under the Revised Penal Code or for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the
Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana
the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act.chanrobles law library includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. 3
: red
The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before
The Supreme Court has held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Criminal Case No. 3162-P was decided, they manifested in said criminal case that
they were filing a separate civil action for damages against the owner and driver of
"According to the Code Commission: ‘The foregoing provision (Article 2177) though the passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict. This acquittal of the driver, Maximo
at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact Borilla, of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 3162-P is not a bar to the
nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, prosecution of Civil Case No. B-134 for damages based on quasi-delict. The source
while the latter is a ‘culpa aquiliana’ or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No. B-134 is quasi-delict, not an
had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the
distinction between criminal negligence and ‘culpa extra-contractual’ or ‘quasi- Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different
delito’ has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and sources of obligation.
maintained as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish
jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the action for damages, Civil Case No. B-
criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a 134, they have only to establish their cause of action by preponderance of the
subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for evidence.
damages due to a quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’. But said article forestalls a
double recovery." (Report of the Code Commission, p. 162.) WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil Case
No. B-134 is reinstated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings,
Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of with costs against the private respondents.
negligence, the same argument of Justice Bocobo about construction that upholds
‘the spirit that giveth life’ rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of SO ORDERED.
the lawmaker should be observed in applying the same. And considering that the
preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely establishes
the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in
character (under Articles 29 to 32) from the civil responsibility arising from crime
fixed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court,
under Sections 2 and 3(c), Rule 111, contemplate also the same separability, it is
‘more congruent with the spirit of law, equity and justice, and more in harmony
with modern progress’, to borrow the felicitous relevant language in Rakes v.
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359, to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176,
where it refers to ‘fault or negligence,’ covers not only acts ‘not punishable by law’
but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act,
whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided
that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to
CHARMINA B. BANAL, petitioner, The petitioner, through counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
vs. dated 8 January 1987 on March 10, 1987.
THE HON. TOMAS V. TADEO, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC-Quezon City, Branch 105
and Rosario Claudia respondents. Respondent Claudio filed her opposition to the motion for reconsideration on
March 25, 1987.

In an order dated 31 March 1987, the respondent court denied petitioner's motion
for reconsideration.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Hence, this petition questioning the orders of the respondent Court.
This is a petition for certiorari to review and set aside the orders of the respondent
Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City dated (1) 8 January 1987 which The issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent Court acted with grave
rejected the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor in Criminal abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction in rejecting the appearance of a
Cases Nos. Q-40909 to Q-40913 where respondent Rosario Claudio is the accused private prosecutor.
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; and (2) 31 March 1987 which denied the
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order dated 8 January 1987; and for The respondents make capital of the fact that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the
mandamus to allow Atty. Bustos to enter his appearance as private prosecutor in act of knowingly issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order. As
the aforestated criminal cases. such, it is argued that it is the State and the public that are the principal
complainants and, therefore, no civil indemnity is provided for by Batas Pambansa
It appears that fifteen (15) separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for which a private party or prosecutor may intervene.
Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 40909-40913,
were filed against respondent Claudio before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon On the other hand, the petitioner, relying on the legal axiom that "Every man
City and originally assigned to Branch 84. criminally liable is also civilly liable," contends that indemnity may be recovered
from the offender regardless of whether or not Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 so provides.
The presiding judge of Branch 84 inhibited himself when respondent Claudio,
through counsel, filed a petition for recuse dated May 19,1986. A careful study of the concept of civil liability allows a solution to the issue in the
case at bar.
The cases were re-raffled and consequently assigned on June 25, 1986 to Branch
105 which was then presided over by Judge Johnico G. Serquina Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate
of our law that "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable" (Art. 100, The
During these proceedings, respondent Claudio was finally arraigned on November Revised Penal Code). Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that
20, 1986 where she pleaded not guilty to the charges. Pre-trial was then set on when a person commits a crime he offends two entities namely ( 1) the society in
January 8, 1987. which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated;
and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity
In the meantime Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. replaced Judge Serquina as presiding or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act
judge of Branch 105. or omission. However, this rather broad and general provision is among the most
complex and controversial topics in criminal procedure. It can be misleading in its
On January 8, 1987, the respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance implications especially where the same act or omission may be treated as a crime in
of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground that the charge is for one instance and as a tort in another or where the law allows a separate civil action
the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which does not provide for any civil liability to proceed independently of the course of the criminal prosecution with which it is
or indemnity and hence, "it is not a crime against property but public order." intimately intertwined. Many legal scholars treat as a misconception or fallacy the
generally accepted notion that, the civil liability actually arises from the crime
when, in the ultimate analysis, it does not. While an act or omission is felonious
because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is Civil liability to the offended private party cannot thus be denied, The payee of the
a crime but because it caused damage to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we check is entitled to receive the payment of money for which the worthless check
can readily see that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and was issued. Having been caused the damage, she is entitled to recompense.
the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another
by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or Surely, it could not have been the intendment of the framers of Batas Pambansa
not the same be punishable by law. In other words, criminal liability will give rise to Big. 22 to leave the offended private party defrauded and empty- handed by
civil liability only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to excluding the civil liability of the offender, giving her only the remedy, which in
another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another many cases results in a Pyrrhic victory, of having to file a separate civil suit. To do
is evidently the foundation of the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions so, may leave the offended party unable to recover even the face value of the check
for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission complained of is due her, thereby unjustly enriching the errant drawer at the expense of the payee.
punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage to another. The protection which the law seeks to provide would, therefore, be brought to
(See Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, 1978, Revised Edition, pp. 246- naught.
247).
The petitioner's intervention in the prosecution of Criminal Cases 40909 to 40913 is
Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides: justified not only for the protection of her interests but also in the interest of the
speedy and inexpensive administration of justice mandated by the Constitution
Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes (Section 16, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of 1987). A separate civil action for
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome, and time-consuming for
both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity of
Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides, indemnification suits must be avoided. Where petitioner's rights may be fulIy adjudicated in the
of the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or injury directly proceedings before the trial court, resort t o a separate action to recover civil
suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another. The indemnity which a liability is clearly unwarranted.
person is sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by law for
the commission of a crime (Quemel v. Court of Appeals, 22 SCRA 44, citing Bagtas v. WHEREFORE the petition is hereby GRANTED. The respondent court is ordered to
Director of Prisons, 84 Phil. 692). Every crime gives rise to a penal or criminal action permit the intervention of a private prosecutor in behalf of petitioner Charmina B.
for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to civil action for the restitution of Banal, in the prosecution of the civil aspect of Criminasl Cases Nos. 40909 to 40913.
the thing, repair of the damage, and indemnification for the losses. (United States v. The temporary restraining order issued by this court a quo for further proceedings.
Bernardo, 19 Phil. 265). This decision is immediately executory.

Indeed one cannot disregard the private party in the case at bar who suffered the
offenses committed against her. Not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled
to relief as a member of the public which the law seeks to protect. She was assured
that the checks were good when she parted with money, property or services. She
suffered with the State when the checks bounced.

In Lozano v. Hon. Martinez (G.R. No. 63419, December 18, 1986) and the cases
consolidated therewith, we held that "The effects of a worthless check transcend
the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touch the
interests of the community at large." Yet, we too recognized the wrong done to the
private party defrauded when we stated therein that "The mischief it creates is not
only a wrong to the payee or the holder, but also an injury to the public."
G.R. No. 169467 February 25, 2010 Defendant Morales was in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague,
who was the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around. He left earlier
ALFREDO P. PACIS and CLEOPATRA D. PACIS, Petitioners, and requested sales agents Matibag and Herbolario to look after the gun store
vs. while he and defendant Morales were away. Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and
JEROME JOVANNE MORALES, Respondent. Herbolario a bunch of keys used in the gun store which included the key to the
drawer where the fatal gun was kept.
DECISION
It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer
CARPIO, J.: and placed it on top of the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, the young Alfred
Dennis Pacis got hold of the same. Matibag asked Alfred Dennis Pacis to return the
gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It went off, the bullet
The Case
hitting the young Alfred in the head.
This petition for review1 assails the 11 May 2005 Decision2 and the 19 August 2005
A criminal case for homicide was filed against Matibag before branch VII of this
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60669.
Court. Matibag, however, was acquitted of the charge against him because of the
exempting circumstance of "accident" under Art. 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal
The Facts Code.

On 17 January 1995, petitioners Alfredo P. Pacis and Cleopatra D. Pacis (petitioners)

By agreement of the parties, the evidence adduced in the criminal case for
filed with the trial court a civil case for damages against respondent Jerome
homicide against Matibag was reproduced and adopted by them as part of their
Jovanne Morales (respondent). Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Dennis Pacis,
evidence in the instant case.3
Jr. (Alfred), a 17-year old student who died in a shooting incident inside the Top
Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City. Respondent is the
On 8 April 1998, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of petitioners. The
owner of the gun store.
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs [Spouses Alfredo P. Pacis and Cleopatra D. Pacis] and against the
On January 19, 1991, Alfred Dennis Pacis, then 17 years old and a first year student
defendant [Jerome Jovanne Morales] ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs —
at the Baguio Colleges Foundation taking up BS Computer Science, died due to a
gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun
(1) ₱30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Alfred Pacis;
Firearm[s] and Ammunition[s] Store located at Upper Mabini Street, Baguio City.
The gun store was owned and operated by defendant Jerome Jovanne Morales.
(2) ₱29,437.65 as actual damages for the hospitalization and burial
expenses incurred by the plaintiffs;
With Alfred Pacis at the time of the shooting were Aristedes Matibag and Jason
Herbolario. They were sales agents of the defendant, and at that particular time,
the caretakers of the gun store. (3) ₱100,000.00 as compensatory damages;

The bullet which killed Alfred Dennis Pacis was fired from a gun brought in by a (4) ₱100,000.00 as moral damages;
customer of the gun store for repair.
(5) ₱50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
The gun, an AMT Automag II Cal. 22 Rimfire Magnum with Serial No. SN-H34194
(Exhibit "Q"), was left by defendant Morales in a drawer of a table located inside SO ORDERED.4
the gun store.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision 5 dated 11 May 2005, Negligence is best exemplified in the case of Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 809). The test
the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Decision and absolved respondent of negligence is this:
from civil liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 6
"x x x. Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
its Resolution dated 19 August 2005. course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain
from that course or take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure
Hence, this petition. to do so constitutes negligence. x x x."

The Trial Court’s Ruling Defendant-appellant maintains that he is not guilty of negligence and lack of due
care as he did not fail to observe the diligence of a good father of a family. He
The trial court held respondent civilly liable for the death of Alfred under Article submits that he kept the firearm in one of his table drawers, which he locked and
2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. 7 The trial court held that the such is already an indication that he took the necessary diligence and care that the
accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partly due to the said gun would not be accessible to anyone. He puts [sic] that his store is engaged
negligence of respondent’s employee Aristedes Matibag (Matibag). Matibag and in selling firearms and ammunitions. Such items which are per se dangerous are
Jason Herbolario (Herbolario) were employees of respondent even if they were only kept in a place which is properly secured in order that the persons coming into the
paid on a commission basis. Under the Civil Code, respondent is liable for the gun store would not be able to take hold of it unless it is done intentionally, such as
damages caused by Matibag on the occasion of the performance of his duties, when a customer is interested to purchase any of the firearms, ammunitions and
unless respondent proved that he observed the diligence of a good father of a other related items, in which case, he may be allowed to handle the same.
family to prevent the damage. The trial court held that respondent failed to observe
the required diligence when he left the key to the drawer containing the loaded We agree. Much as We sympathize with the family of the deceased, defendant-
defective gun without instructing his employees to be careful in handling the loaded appellant is not to be blamed. He exercised due diligence in keeping his loaded gun
gun. while he was on a business trip in Manila. He placed it inside the drawer and locked
it. It was taken away without his knowledge and authority. Whatever happened to
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling the deceased was purely accidental.8

The Court of Appeals held that respondent cannot be held civilly liable since there The Issues
was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and Matibag. The
Court of Appeals found that Matibag was not under the control of respondent with Petitioners raise the following issues:
respect to the means and methods in the performance of his work. There can be no
employer-employee relationship where the element of control is absent. Thus, I. THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN RENDERING THE
Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case and respondent cannot be DECISION AND RESOLUTION IN QUESTION IN DISREGARD OF LAW AND
held liable. JURISPRUDENCE BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
(BRANCH 59) OF BAGUIO CITY NOTWITHSTANDING CLEAR, AUTHENTIC RECORDS
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals ruled that even if respondent is considered an AND TESTIMONIES PRESENTED DURING THE TRIAL WHICH NEGATE AND
employer of Matibag, still respondent cannot be held liable since no negligence can CONTRADICT ITS FINDINGS.
be attributed to him. As explained by the Court of Appeals:
II. THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE, REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RENDERING
Granting arguendo that an employer-employee relationship existed between THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION IN QUESTION BY DEPARTING FROM THE
Aristedes Matibag and the defendant-appellant, we find that no negligence can be ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THEREBY IGNORING
attributed to him. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BRANCH 59) OF BAGUIO
CITY SHOWING PETITIONER’S CLEAR RIGHTS TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES.9
 The Ruling of the Court and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for ready-access
defensive use.16 With more reason, guns accepted by the store for repair should not
We find the petition meritorious. be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an accidental
discharge such as what happened in this case. Respondent was clearly negligent
This case for damages arose out of the accidental shooting of petitioners’ son. when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without
Under Article 116110 of the Civil Code, petitioners may enforce their claim for ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the first place, the defective gun should
damages based on the civil liability arising from the crime under Article 10011 of the have been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair,
Revised Penal Code or they may opt to file an independent civil action for damages respondent should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward
under the Civil Code. In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the accident. Indeed, respondent should never accept a firearm from another person,
homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an independent civil until the cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that the weapon
action for damages against respondent whom they alleged was Matibag’s is completely unloaded.17 For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded,
employer. Petitioners based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 respondent himself was negligent. Furthermore, it was not shown in this case
of the Civil Code. whether respondent had a License to Repair which authorizes him to repair
defective firearms to restore its original composition or enhance or upgrade
firearms.18
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 10312 of the Revised
Penal Code,13 the liability of the employer, or any person for that matter, under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a person’s own Clearly, respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a
negligence. Article 2176 states: good father of a family, much less the degree of care required of someone dealing
with dangerous weapons, as would exempt him from liability in this case.
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun

store.1avvphi1 Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the "Policy on Firearms and
Ammunition Dealership/Repair," a person who is in the business of purchasing and
selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic security and safety
requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership will be
suspended or canceled.14

Indeed, a higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or
under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as
dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of
dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to
prevent any injury being done thereby.15 Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or
business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

As a gun store owner, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms

safety and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid
unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. Respondent has the duty to ensure
that all the guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored unloaded
G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002 The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999 dismissing the petition
for certiorari for lack of merit. The Capas RTC ruled that the order of dismissal
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, issued by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore the
vs. proper remedy should have been an appeal. The Capas RTC further held that a
MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent. special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Finally, the
Capas RTC declared that even on the premise that the MCTC erred in dismissing the
CARPIO, J.: civil case, such error is a pure error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion.

The Case Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Capas RTC
denied the same in the Resolution of August 24, 2000.
This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Resolution1 dated
December 28, 1999 dismissing the petition for certiorari and the Resolution 2 dated Hence, this petition.
August 24, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, in Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99). The Issue

The Facts The petition premises the legal issue in this wise:

Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya ("Laroya" for brevity) "In a certain vehicular accident involving two parties, each one of them
and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo ("Capitulo" for brevity) and may think and believe that the accident was caused by the fault of the
driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan ("Casupanan" for brevity), figured in an other. x x x [T]he first party, believing himself to be the aggrieved party,
accident. As a result, two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court opted to file a criminal case for reckless imprudence against the second
("MCTC" for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan party. On the other hand, the second party, together with his operator,
for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, docketed as Criminal Case believing themselves to be the real aggrieved parties, opted in turn to file a
No. 002-99. On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against civil case for quasi-delict against the first party who is the very private
Laroya for quasi-delict, docketed as Civil Case No. 2089. complainant in the criminal case."4

When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless
investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil
civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.
criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion in the Order of March 26, 1999 and
dismissed the civil case. The Court’s Ruling

On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil case Casupanan and Capitulo assert that Civil Case No. 2089, which the MCTC dismissed
is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. The on the ground of forum-shopping, constitutes a counterclaim in the criminal case.
MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration in the Order of May 7, 1999. Casupanan and Capitulo argue that if the accused in a criminal case has a
Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the counterclaim against the private complainant, he may file the counterclaim in a
Regional Trial Court ("Capas RTC" for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, 3 assailing separate civil action at the proper time. They contend that an action on quasi-delict
the MCTC’s Order of dismissal. is different from an action resulting from the crime of reckless imprudence, and an
accused in a criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from the
The Trial Court’s Ruling same incident. They maintain that under Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the
civil case can proceed independently of the criminal action. Finally, they point out
that Casupanan was not the only one who filed the independent civil action based
on quasi-delict but also Capitulo, the owner-operator of the vehicle, who was not a Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
party in the criminal case. property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the
civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although these two
In his Comment, Laroya claims that the petition is fatally defective as it does not actions arose from the same act or omission, they have different causes of action.
state the real antecedents. Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal
forfeited their right to question the order of dismissal when they failed to avail of Code while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176
the proper remedy of appeal. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be and 2177 of the Civil Code. These articles on culpa aquiliana read:
resolved as the order of dismissal is already final and a petition for certiorari is not a
substitute for a lapsed appeal. "Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
In their Reply, Casupanan and Capitulo contend that the petition raises the legal or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
question of whether there is forum-shopping since they filed only one action - the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
independent civil action for quasi-delict against Laroya. Chapter.

Nature of the Order of Dismissal Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article
is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum- negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The MCTC did twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."
not state in its order of dismissal5 that the dismissal was with prejudice. Under the
Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is without prejudice to refiling the Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by
complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is with prejudice.6 Absent preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered damage because of the fault or
a declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is deemed without negligence of another. Either the private complainant or the accused can file a
prejudice. Thus, the MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a separate civil action under these articles. There is nothing in the law or rules that
dismissal without prejudice. state only the private complainant in a criminal case may invoke these articles.

Section 1 of Rule 417 provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action Procedure ("2000 Rules" for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his
under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that "where the judgment or counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:
final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special
civil action under Rule 65." Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for "SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) x x x.
certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is
erroneous. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the
accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have
Forum-Shopping been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action."
(Emphasis supplied)
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his
secure a favorable judgment.8 Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the
cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs accused files such separate civil action.
sought.9 However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law
and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed Filing of a separate civil action
independently of the criminal action.
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure ("1985 Rules" for "SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) When a criminal
brevity), as amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil action action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
independently of the criminal action provided the offended party reserved the right from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
to file such civil action. Unless the offended party reserved the civil action before action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arising from to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
the same act or omission were deemed "impliedly instituted" in the criminal case. action.
These civil actions referred to the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery
of damages for quasi-delict, and the recovery of damages for violation of Articles The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on Human Relations. made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to
Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for quasi-delict under the 1985 make such reservation.
Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring
such action. Otherwise, such civil action was deemed "impliedly instituted" in the xxx
criminal action. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules provided as follows:
(b) x x x
"Section 1. – Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
waives the action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
the civil action prior to the criminal action. granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section
2 of this rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions."
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal (Emphasis supplied)
Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is "deemed instituted" with the
criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution or ex-delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately Code are no longer "deemed instituted," and may be filed separately and
waives the others. prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The
failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be a separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code.
made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under The prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to continues to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions
make such reservation. based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of
the civil action "deemed instituted" in the criminal action.10
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the accused. Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a
separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the
x x x." (Emphasis supplied) criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended
party is deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended on December 1, 2000 and now filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed
provides as follows: separately but its trial has not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated
with the criminal action. The consolidation under this Rule does not apply to
separate civil actions arising from the same act or omission filed under Articles 32, Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.11 separate civil action, filed to recover damages ex-delicto, is suspended upon the
filing of the criminal action. Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also prohibits the
Suspension of the Separate Civil Action filing, after commencement of the criminal action, of a separate civil action to
recover damages ex-delicto.
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a separate civil action, if
reserved in the criminal action, could not be filed until after final judgment was When civil action may proceed independently
rendered in the criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed before the
commencement of the criminal action, the civil action, if still pending, was The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and Capitulo, who are not the
suspended upon the filing of the criminal action until final judgment was rendered offended parties in the criminal case, can file a separate civil action against the
in the criminal action. This rule applied only to the separate civil action filed to offended party in the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules provides
recover liability ex-delicto. The rule did not apply to independent civil actions based as follows:
on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which could proceed
independently regardless of the filing of the criminal action. "SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases
provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
The amended provision of Section 2, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules continues this the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall
procedure, to wit: proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party
"SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. – After the criminal action recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot criminal action." (Emphasis supplied)
be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules,
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been expressly allows the "offended party" to bring an independent civil action under
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present
found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final Rule 111, this civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and
judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon "offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in criminal action."
the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended present Rule 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may bring such an
party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for the same act or
The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the
jointly. offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in Cabaero vs. Cantos12 where
prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or the Court held that the accused therein could validly institute a separate civil action
whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. In Cabaero, the
accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with Counterclaim for malicious
x x x." (Emphasis supplied) prosecution. At that time the Court noted the "absence of clear-cut rules governing
the prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary
consequences and implications thereof." Thus, the Court ruled that the trial court
should confine itself to the criminal aspect of the case and disregard any 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the
counterclaim for civil liability. The Court further ruled that the accused may file a accused "may be litigated in a separate civil action." This is only fair for two
separate civil case against the offended party "after the criminal case is terminated reasons. First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil
and/or in accordance with the new Rules which may be promulgated." The Court aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore
explained that a cross-claim, counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the
aspect will only unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and delay the resolution accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period
of the criminal case. may set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is
filed.
Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was incorporated in the 2000 Rules
precisely to address the lacunamentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177
accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint in of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy
the criminal case. However, the same provision states that "any cause of action which is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a
which could have been the subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in
complaint) may be litigated in a separate civil action." The present Rule 111 the criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal
mandates the accused to file his counterclaim in a separate civil actiosn which shall protection of the law.
proceed independently of the criminal action, even as the civil action of the
offended party is litigated in the criminal action. Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and
Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the
Conclusion ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, We make this ruling aware of the possibility that the decision of the trial court in
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action the criminal case may vary with the decision of the trial court in the independent
but may be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The civil action. This possibility has always been recognized ever since the Civil Code
commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the introduced in 1950 the concept of an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33,
independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in 34 and 2176 of the Code. But the law itself, in Article 31 of the Code, expressly
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the provides that the independent civil action "may proceed independently of the
crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter." In Azucena vs.
criminal action. Potenciano,13the Court declared:

Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. "x x x. There can indeed be no other logical conclusion than this, for to
The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result
deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the of the criminal prosecution — whether it be conviction or acquittal —
rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action
independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal and the clear injunction in Article 31 that this action 'may proceed
action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the latter.’"
the defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a
second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code introduced the concept of
omission of the accused. In some instances, the accused may be insolvent, a civil action separate and independent from the criminal action although arising
necessitating the filing of another case against his employer or guardians. from the same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to encounter a case of
conflicting and irreconcilable decisions of trial courts, one hearing the criminal case
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or and the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear of conflicting and
omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph
irreconcilable decisions may be more apparent than real. In any event, there are
sufficient remedies under the Rules of Court to deal with such remote possibilities.

One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect on December
1, 2000 while the MCTC issued the order of dismissal on December 28, 1999 or
before the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must
be given retroactive effect considering the well-settled rule that -

"x x x statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as

applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that
extent."14

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The

Resolutions dated December 28, 1999 and August 24, 2000 in Special Civil Action
No. 17-C (99) are ANNULLED and Civil Case No. 2089 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, MERCEDES L. ... containing an area of EIGHTY FOUR
JAVELLANA, petitioner, THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE
vs. (84,653) Square meters, more or less, ... in the
ITONG AMISTAD respondent. names of spouses I tong Amistad and Luisa
Tengdan.

(2) (October 11, 1965) sell, convey, transfer and deliver by way of
a deed of sale in favor of Teodoro Mat-an the remaining 42,326
DE CASTRO, J.: square meters of the above-described parcel of land; and

The legal question raised in this petition for certiorari is whether from a decision of (3) (December 23, 1965) execute a supplemental deed of sale
acquittal, the complainant in a criminal action for estafa, may appeal with respect over the entire area covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-
to the civil aspect of the case. 105 in favor of vendees Ben Palispis and Teodoro Mat-an which
effected the issuance of two separate titles in favor of said
The criminal action in this case was commenced in the Court of First Instance of vendees —
Baguio and Benguet, under an information which reads:
knowing fully well and purposely withholding the information that
INFORMATION on or about February 10, 1962, he had previously entered into an
agreement with one MERCEDES L. JAVELLANA to convey to her an
area of 10,000 square meters from the above-described parcel of
The undersigned Acting 1st Assistant City Fiscal accuses ITONG
land for the sum of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS and had
AMISTAD of the crime of Estafa penalized under Article 316
already received from her the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (
Paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
P5,000.00) PESOS, thereby causing damage and prejudice to said
Mercedes L. Javellana in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND
That on or about January 30, 1965, October 11,
(P5,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.
1965, and December 23, 1965, in the City of
Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
All contrary to law.
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously — After trial, decision was rendered dated February 8, 1971, and promulgated on
March 18, 1971 acquitting the accused, respondent herein, the Court holding that
"the case of the prosecution is civil in nature" and that "the guilt of the accused has
(1) (January 30, 1965) sell, convey, transfer and deliver by way of
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt."
a deed of sale in favor of Ben Palispis an unsegregated portion of
42,326 square meters of that parcel of land described in
From the judgment of acquittal, the complainant, the petitioner herein, appealed to
the Court of Appeals insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 0-105
Without awaiting the completion of the transcript of the stenographic notes in the
case, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal merely on the legal proposition
A parcel of land (Lot 1, plan Psu-203086-Amd., that an appeal by the complainant from a judgment of acquittal should be
Civil Reservation Case No. 1, L.R.C. Civil
disallowed.
Reservation Record No. 211), situated in the
Res. Sec. "J", City of Baguio. Bounded on the
The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 1, 1971, is set forth in full
NE., by property of Honor Kingdoms; on the
as follows:
SW., by Lot 2; on the W and NW., by Public land.
This refers to an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Considering that the complainant is appealing from a judgment
Instance of Baguio, in Criminal Case No. 4205, wherein the acquitting the accused in a criminal case, her appeal should be
accused Itong Amistad who was prosecuted for the crime of disallowed.
estafa paragraph 2, Article 316 R.P.C.), was acquitted. The
decision was promulgated on March 18, 1971 and on that same WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby ordered dismissed. The
day, the complainant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal stenographers who were required to submit their respective
from said judgment, "insofar as the civil liability of the accused is transcripts of stenographic notes in this case are hereby excused
concerned." Apparently the appeal was approved by the trial therefrom. (pp. 6-7, Brief for the Respondent, p. 78, Rollo).
court, the records of the case were elevated to this Court, and this
Court required the completion of the same. A motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals was filed but
was denied on January 4, 1972. From both aforesaid Resolutions dismissing the
Now, while the right of the offended party to intervene in the appeal and the order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioner came
criminal action (Section 15, Rule 110, Rules) as well as to appeal to this Court on a petition for certiorari with prayer that the Resolution of the Court
from a final judgment or ruling or from an order made after of Appeals be reversed, and that judgment be rendered in favor of petitioner and
judgment affecting the substantial rights of the appellant (Section against respondent insofar as the latter's hability is concerned —
2, Rule 122, Rules) is recognized, the offended party however,
cannot appeal if the accused is acquitted as matters are (People (a) Ordering respondent to pay to petitioner such sum as this
vs. Herrera 74 Phil. 21). indeed, the trial court in acquitting the Court shall adjudge to rightfully represent the value of the one
herein defendant stated: hectare portion of the land involved agreed to be conveyed to
petitioner by respondent in accordance with the Agreement to
In the mind of the court, the case of the Convey Real Property (Exhibit "A");
prosecution is civil in nature. In fact, the
supervening acts of the parties after the (b) Ordering respondent to pay to petitioner the expenses of
execution of Exhibit A until the execution of litigation actually incurred by the latter; and
Exhibit D are clear and unequivocal which
ineluctably lead this court to believe that the
(c) Ordering respondent to pay the costs of suit. (p.28, Brief for
guilt of the accused has not been proven
the Petitioner, p. 60, Rollo).
beyond reasonable doubt.
The sole legal question for determination as stated at the outset, is whether an
An appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance would
appeal by the complainant for estafa, may be allowed from a decision acquitting
perforce require a new determination of defendant's criminal
the accused of the crime charged, only insofar as the latter's civil liability is
liability. This cannot be done. Besides, the offended party has the
concerned.
remedy of bringing a civil action independently of the criminal
action.
In support of her affirmative position on the issue above stated, petitioner cites
Section 2, Rules 122 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Indeed, this question is not new. It has already been so ruled by
the Supreme Court in several cases (People vs. Flores, G.R. No. L-
SEC. 2. Who may appeal.—The People of the Philippines can not
7523, December 18, 1957, citing People vs. Velez, 77 Phil. 1026;
appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double
People vs. Benjamin Liggayu et al., No. 8224, October 31, 1955;
jeopardy. In all other cases either party may appeal from a final
People vs. Joaquin Lipana 72 Phil. 166; People vs. Florendo, 73
judgment or ruling or from an order made after judgment
Phil. 679 [decided under the new Rules of Court]; Ricafort vs.
affecting the substantial rights of the appellant. (p. 12, Brief for
Fernan, 101 Phil. 575, 572).
the Petitioner, p. 60, Rollo).
Additionally, she cites Section 3 of Rule 111, from which she quotes the following: of the accused, despite which, the trial court failed to rule on the latter's civil
liability to the complainant.
SEC. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses.—In all cases not
included in the preceding section the following rules shall be It is this omission, as alleged by petitioner herein, that con constitutes the thrust of
observed: her first assignment of error, the only one We feel called upon to rule on, among
her three assigned errors, the other two having relation to how the trial court
xxx xxx xxx evaluated the evidence, and the extent of damages petitioner alleges to be entitled
to under such evidence, which evidently may not be passed upon in the instant
(c) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction proceedings, the evidence presented during the trial not having been elevated to
of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a this Court, nor even to the Court of Appeals, at least not fully or completely.
final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action Confining ourselves, therefore, to the first assigned error, We find no ground to
may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by reverse the Resolution of the Court of Appeals on the purely legal question of
law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the whether the petitioner, as complainant in Criminal Case No. 4025 of the Court of
thing and reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered. (Rule First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, for estafa, can appeal from the judgment
111, Rules of Court in the Philippines.) (pp. 13-14, Id) acquitting the accused, because the trial court failed to declare the latter's civil
liability to the complainant, which was allegedly proven by the evidence.
Finally, she cites Article 29 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads:
The provision of Article 29 of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioner clearly
ART. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted requires the institution of a separate action by the filing of the proper complaint. To
on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond such complaint, the accused as the defendant therein, may file the appropriate
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or responsive pleading, which may be an answer or a motion to dismiss. In a criminal
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a action, notwithstanding that the action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the instituted therewith, if not reserved or waived, the accused is not afforded the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for same remedy. Neither is the mandatory pre-trial held as is required of all civil
damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. actions. The obvious reason is that the civil liability recoverable in the criminal
action is one solely dependent upon conviction, because said liability arises from
the offense, with respect to which pre-trial is never held to obtain admission as to
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
the commission thereof, except on the occasion of arraignment. This is the kind of
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
civil liability involved in the civil action deemed filed simultaneously with the filing
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
of criminal action, unless it is reserved or waived, as so expressly provided in
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground. (p.
Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and as held in People vs. Herrera, 74 Phil.
14, id).
21.
From the aforequoted provisions, petitioners contend that the remedy of appeal is
If the civil liability arises from other sources than the commission of the offense,
expressly granted to her inasmuch as the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
such as from law or contract or quasi-delict, its enforcement has to be by an
is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, Criminal Case No. 4205 of the Court
ordinary civil action, which, as expressly provided in Article 29 of the Civil Code may
of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, there having been no reservation to file a
be disposed of as a mere preponderance of evidence would warrant. Then, all the
separate civil action or a waiver of the right to file one. She had in fact hired a
defenses available, such as prescription, lack of jurisdiction, set-off, and the other
private prosecutor to handle, primarily the civil aspect of the case, the prosecution
grounds for a motion to dismiss may be availed of, as may be proper under the
of the crime remaining under the direction and control of the prosecuting Fiscal.
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, complete with pre-trial after issues
The private prosecutor presented evidence bearing on the civil liability of the
have been joined. Upon these considerations, it becomes clear that the argument
accused. In a memorandum he filed, he also discussed extensively the civil liability
of petitioner invoking the rule against multiplicity of action may not forcefully or The futility of petitioner's instant recourse becomes all too evident upon
convincingly be put forth. consideration of the principles enunciated, particularly in the Herrera case, since if
the civil liability recoverable in a criminal action is one arising from the crime
In the Resolution of the Court of Appeals several cases have been cited which held charged, no longer may the respondent be found criminally liable upon a review of
that an appeal from the dismissal of the criminal case on motion by the fiscal may the evidence, after the verdict of acquittal has been handed down by the trial court.
not be taken by the offended party (People vs. Lipana 72 Phil. 168; People vs. Again, petitioner tries to show that the cases cited by the Court of Appeals are not
Florendo, 73 Phil. 679). In the case of People vs. Herrera, et al., 74 Phil. 21, the in point. But she has not cited one single case faintly supporting her position as she
accused was acquitted without the court making any pronouncement as to his civil has tried to maintain in the instant case.
liability, in exactly the same manner that the Court of First Instance of Baguio and
Benguet in Criminal Case No. 4025, was charged with a similar omission in the case Nevertheless, petitioner may not complaint, as she does of being denied due
at bar. The Supreme Court did not permit an appeal by the offended party, the process for disallowing her appeal. She can institute a separate civil action if her
Court saying: cause of action could come under the category of quasi-delict or one arising from
law, contract or any other known source of civil liability, but certainly not anymore
The decision of the justice of the peace court which acquitted the from the offense of which petitioner had already been acquitted. It is but fair to
defendant of the charge and did not make any pronouncement require petitioner to take this course of action, not only because she would have to
holding the defendant civilly liable put an end to the case, not pay for the lawful expenses for instituting the action to obtain the relief she seeks
only by freeing the defendant from criminal responsibility but also from respondent, from which she is spared in the prosecution of a criminal case,
by rejecting all liability for damages arising from the alleged crime but also for the respondent or defendant to avail of all defenses and remedies as
of malicious mischief. The offended parties not having reserved are open to him in a separate civil action not otherwise available in a criminal action
their right to bring a separate civil action, the aforesaid decision of that carries with it the civil action when deemed simultaneously filed with it, to
acquittal covered both the criminal and the civil aspects of the recover civil liability arising from the crime charged.
case under Rule 107, section l (a) of the new Rules of Court. An
appeal from that decision to the Court of First Instance, as For all the foregoing, the Resolution appealed from is affirmed, and the instant
intended by the offended parties, would reopen the question of petition is, accordingly, dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.
defendant's civil liability arising from the alleged crime. And
considering that such civil liability must be based on the criminal SO ORDERED.
responsibility of the defendant (art. 100, Revised Penal Code), any
review or re-examination of the question of civil liability would
perforce require a new determination of defendant's criminal
liability. But another trial upon defendant's criminal responsibility
cannot be held, in view of his previous acquittal in the justice of
the peace court. So the appeal from the decision of the justice of
the peace court is not authorized by law.

Brought out in bold relief in the aforequoted ruling is that what is impliedly brought
simultaneously with the criminal action is the civil action to recover civil
liability arising from the offense. Hence, the two actions may rise or fall together.
However, if the civil action is reserved, or if the ground of acquittal is reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, a separate civil action may be filed, the
complainant alleging a cause of action independent of, and not based on, the
commission of an offense. Only preponderance of evidence would then be
required.
EDGAR JARANTILLA, petitioner, After trial, the court below rendered judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the
vs. herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay the former the sum
COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE KUAN SING, respondents. of P 6,920.00 for hospitalization, medicines and so forth, P2,000.00 for other actual
expenses, P25,000.00 for moral damages, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, and
REGALADO, J.: costs. 12

The records show that private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a On July 29, 1987, the respondent Court of Appeals 13 affirmed the decision of the
vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart Street, Iloilo City" 1 The respondent lower court except as to the award for moral damages which it reduced from
Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle P25,000.00 to P18,000.00. A motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent
which figured in the mishap, a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by court on September 18, 1987. 14
petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward the direction of the provincial
capitol, and that private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence. 2 The main issue for resolution by Us in the present recourse is whether the private
respondent, who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries
Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution thereof without
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207 reserving the civil action arising from the act or omission complained of, can file a
thereof. 3 Private respondent, as the complaining witness therein, did not reserve separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the
his right to institute a separate civil action and he intervened in the prosecution of herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no
said criminal case through a private prosecutor. 4 Petitioner was acquitted in said civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal.
criminal case "on reasonable doubt".5
Prefatorily, We note that petitioner raises a collateral issue by faulting the
On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in respondent court for refusing to resolve an assignment of error in his appeal
the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, 6 docketed therein as Civil therein, said respondent court holding that the main issue had been passed upon
Case No. 9976, and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act by this Court in G.R. No. L-40992 hereinbefore mentioned. It is petitioner's position
complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. 7 In his answer filed therein, the that the aforesaid two resolutions of the Court in said case, the first dismissing the
petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent petition and the second denying the motion for reconsideration, do not constitute
had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latter's cause of action, if any, is the "law of the case' which would control the subsequent proceed ings in this
barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as when said controversy.
criminal case was instituted the civil liability was also deemed instituted since
therein plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the 1. We incline favorably to petitioner's submission on this score.
criminal case. 8
The "doctrine of the law of the case" has no application at the aforesaid posture of
Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant, the trial court the proceedings when the two resolutions were handed down. While it may be true
issued on April 3, 1975 an order of denial, with the suggestion that "(t)o enrich our that G.R. No. L-40992 may have involved some of the issues which were thereafter
jurisprudence, it is suggested that the defendant brings (sic) this ruling to the submitted for resolution on the merits by the two lower courts, the proceedings
Supreme Court by certiorari or other appropriate remedy, to review the ruling of involved there was one for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing an
the court". 9 interlocutory order of the court a quo, specifically, its order denying therein
defendants motion to dismiss. This Court, without rendering a specific opinion or
On June 17, 1975, petitioner filed in this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition explanation as to the legal and factual bases on which its two resolutions were
and mandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992, 10 assailing the aforesaid predicated, simply dismissed the special civil action on that incident for lack of
order of the trial court. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's merit. It may very well be that such resolution was premised on the fact that the
resolution of July 23, 1975, and a motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for Court, at that stage and on the basis of the facts then presented, did not consider
the same reason in a resolution of October 28, 1975. 11 that the denial order of the court a quo was tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. 15 To repeat, no rationale for such resolutions having been expounded
on the merits of that action, no law of the case may be said to have been laid down offense charged in the criminal case through her intervention as a private
in G.R. No. L-40992 to justify the respondent court's refusal to consider petitioner's prosecutor, the final judgment rendered therein constituted a bar to the
claim that his former acquittal barred the separate action. subsequent civil action based upon the same cause. It is meet, however, not to lose
sight of the fact that the criminal action involved therein was for serious oral
'Law of the case' has been defined as the opinion delivered on defamation which, while within the contemplation of an independent civil action
a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is once under Article 33 of the Civil Code, constitutes only a penal omen and cannot
irrevocably established, as the controlling legal rule of otherwise be considered as a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2176 and
decision between the same parties in the same case continues to 2177 of the Civil Code. And while petitioner draws attention to the supposed
be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or reiteration of the Roa doctrine in the later case of Azucena vs. Potenciano, et
not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated al., 21 this time involving damage to property through negligence as to make out a
continue to be the facts of the case before the court (21 C.J.S. case of quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, such secondary
330). (Emphasis supplied). 16 reliance is misplaced since the therein plaintiff Azucena did not intervene in the
criminal action against defendant Potenciano. The citation of Roa in the later case
It need not be stated that the Supreme Court being the court of of Azucena was, therefore, clearly obiter and affords no comfort to petitioner.
last resort, is the final arbiter of all legal questions properly
brought before it and that its decision in any given case These are aside from the fact that there have been doctrinal, and even
constitutes the law of that particular case . . . (Emphasis statutory, 22 changes on the matter of civil actions arising from criminal offenses
supplied). 17 and quasi-delicts. We will reserve our discussion on the statutory aspects for
another case and time and, for the nonce, We will consider the doctrinal
It is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate developments on this issue.
court in a case is the law of the case on the points presented
throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the In the case under consideration, private respondent participated and intervened in
trial and the appellate courts, and no question necessarily the prosecution of the criminal suit against petitioner. Under the present
involved and decided on that appeal will be considered on a jurisprudential milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable
second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts doubt, it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civil liability of the
and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first accused 23 and the complainant could file a petition for mandamus to compel the
question rested and, according to some authorities, provided the trial court to include such civil liability in the judgment of acquittal. 24
decision is on the merits . . . 18
Private respondent, as already stated, filed a separate civil aciton after such
2. With the foregoing ancillary issue out of the way, We now consider the principal acquittal. This is allowed under Article 29 of the Civil Code. We have ruled in the
plaint of petitioner. relatively recent case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al. 25that:

Apropos to such resolution is the settled rule that the same act or omission (in this In view of the fact that the defendant-appellee de la Cruz was
case, the negligent sideswiping of private respondent) can create two kinds of acquitted on the ground that 'his guilt was not proven beyond
liability on the part of the offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto and civil reasonable doubt' the plaintiff-appellant has the right to institute
liability ex quasi delicto. Since the same negligence can give rise either to a delict or a separate civil action to recover damages from the defendants-
crime or to a quasi-delict or tort, either of these two types of civil liability may be appellants (See Mendoza vs. Arrieta, 91 SCRA 113). The well-
enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil settled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable may
Code that the offended party cannot recover damages under both types of still be civilly liable. 'The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the
liability. 19 civil liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration
that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not
We also note the reminder of petitioner that in Roa vs. De la Cruz, et al., 20 it was exist'. (Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 558 cited in People
held that where the offended party elected to claim damages arising from the vs. Rogelio Ligon y Tria, et al., G.R. No. 74041, July 29, 1987;
 Filomeno Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. was on its way from Plazoleta Gay towards the
72964, January 7, 1988). The ruling is based on Article 29 of the Provincial Capitol, Iloilo City, which car was
Civil Code which provides: being driven by the defendant in a reckless and
negligent manner, at an excessive rate of speed
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is and in violation of the provisions of the Revised
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not Motor Vehicle (sic) as amended, in relation to
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil the Land Transportation and Traffic Code as well
action for damages for the same act or omission as in violation of existing city ordinances, and by
may be instituted. Such action requires only a reason of his inexcusable lack of precaution and
preponderance of evidence ... 26 failure to act with due negligence and by failing
to take into consideration (sic) his degree of
Another consideration in favor of private respondent is the doctrine that the failure intelligence, the atmospheric conditions of the
of the court to make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil place as well as the width, traffic, visibility and
liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability other conditions of lznart Street; 29
litigated and determined in a separate action. The rules nowhere provide that if the
court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. 27 Since this action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve
his right to file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not
Furthermore, in the present case the civil liability sought to be recovered through bar him from filing such separate civil action for damages. 30 The Court has also
the application of Article 29 is no longer that based on or arising from the criminal heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill 31 that —
offense. There is persuasive logic in the view that, under such circumstances, the
acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil liability based on Article 100 of the ... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act
Revised Penal Code which presupposes the existence of criminal liability or requires whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
a conviction of the offense charged. Divested of its penal element by such acquittal, acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is
the causative act or omission becomes in effect a quasi-delict, hence only a civil also actually charged criminally, to recover damages on both
action based thereon may be instituted or prosecuted thereafter, which action can scores; and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the
be proved by mere preponderance of evidence. 28 Complementary to such bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
considerations, Article 29 enunciates the rule, as already stated, that a civil action cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred
for damages is not precluded by an acquittal on reasonable doubt for the same to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability
criminal act or omission. founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the
civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and
The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the
constitutive of a case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner, thus: criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or
has not been committed by the accused . . .
3. That in the evening of July 7, 197l at about
7:00 o'clock, the plaintiff crossed Iznart Street The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al. involved virtually
from his restaurant situated at 220 lznart St., the same factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore
Iloilo City, Philippines, on his way to a meeting quoted, expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his
of the Cantonese Club at Aldeguer Street, Iloilo right to file a separate civil case is not fatal; that his intervention in the criminal case
City and while he was standing on the middle of did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages, especially
the street as there were vehicles coming from considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not
the Provincial Building towards Plazoleta Gay, proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two
Iloilo City, he was bumped and sideswiped by different causes of action, the criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the
Volkswagen car with plate No. B-2508 W which Revised Penal Code while the subsequent complaint for damages was based on a
quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability Petitioner appealed the civil aspect7 of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
was not passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil case may proceed as Makati, contending that the dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil
authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. aspect.

Our initial adverse observation on a portion of the decision of respondent court By Decision of September 11, 2003, Branch 60 of the RTC held that while the
aside, We hold that on the issues decisive of this case it did not err in sustaining the evidence presented was insufficient to prove respondent’s criminal liability, it did
decision a quo. not altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly granted the appeal of
petitioner and ordered respondent to pay him the amount of ₱1,875,000 with legal
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is hereby DENIED and the decision of the interest.8
respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, without costs.
Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC set aside its
HUN HYUNG PARK, Petitioner, decision and ordered the remand of the case to the MeTC "for further proceedings,
vs. so that the defendant [-respondent herein] may adduce evidence on the civil aspect
EUNG WON CHOI, Respondent. of the case."9 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the remand of the case
having been denied, he elevated the case to the CA which, by the assailed
DECISION resolutions, dismissed his petition for the following reasons:

CARPIO MORALES, J.: 1. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the
petition does not fully comply with Section 4, as amended by A.M. No. 00-
2-10-SC, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Court, because it does not give the
Petitioner, Hun Hyung Park, assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated May
assurance that the allegations of the petition are true and correct based on
20, 20041 and September 28, 20042 in CA G.R. CR No. 28344 dismissing his petition
authentic records.
and denying reconsideration thereof, respectively.

2. The petition is not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other

In an Information3 dated August 31, 2000, respondent, Eung Won Choi, was
material portions of the record, (i.e., motion for leave to file demurrer to
charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing
evidence, demurrer to evidence and the opposition thereto, and the
Checks Law, for issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine National Bank Check No.
Municipal [sic] Trial Court’s Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 294690) as
0077133 postdated August 28, 1999 in the amount of ₱1,875,000 which was
would support the allegations of the petition (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds.

3. The Decision dated September 11, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court
Upon arraignment, respondent, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded "not guilty"
attached to the petition is an uncertified and illegible mere machine copy
to the offense charged. Following the pre-trial conference, the prosecution
of the original (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ibid.).
presented its evidence-in-chief.

4. Petitioners failed to implead the People of the Philippines as party-

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed a Motion for Leave of Court
respondent in the petition.10
to File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the
prosecution failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence, the
presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise. 4 In his present petition, petitioner assails the above-stated reasons of the appellate
court in dismissing his petition.
By Order5 of February 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati,
Branch 65 granted the Demurrer and dismissed the case. The prosecution’s Motion The manner of verification for pleadings which are required to be verified, such as a
for Reconsideration was denied.6 petition for review before the CA of an appellate judgment of the RTC,11 is
prescribed by Section 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, was not present during the conference.17 Hence, petitioner needed to rely on the
pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. records to confirm its veracity.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never
the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake
authentic records. is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath18 to secure an assurance
that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on correct and not merely speculative.19
"information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a
proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.12(Emphasis and This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement of verification and
underscoring supplied) certification and enunciating that obedience to the requirements of procedural
rules is needed if fair results are to be expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the
Petitioner argues that the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation rules cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal
and independence, hence, he chose to affirm in his petition he filed before the construction.20 While the requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not
court a quo that its contents are "true and correct of my own personal make it less a rule. A relaxed application of the rule can only be justified by the
knowledge,"13 and not on the basis of authentic documents. attending circumstances of the case.21

On the other hand, respondent counters that the word "or" may be interpreted in a To sustain petitioner’s explanation that the basis of verification is a matter of simple
conjunctive sense and construed to mean as "and," or vice versa, when the context preference would trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness of the rule.
of the law so warrants. It would play on predilection and pay no heed in providing enough assurance of the
correctness of the allegations.
A reading of the above-quoted Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may be
verified under either of the two given modes or under both. The veracity of the On the second reason of the CA in dismissing the petition – that the petition was
allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one’s own personal not accompanied by copies of certain pleadings and other material portions of the
knowledge or on authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the record as would support the allegations of the petition (i.e., Motion for Leave to File
preposition "or" connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for Demurrer to Evidence, Demurrer to Evidence and the Opposition thereto, and the
verification and, needless to state, the concurrence of both sources is more than MeTC February 27, 2003 Order dismissing the case) – petitioner contends that
sufficient.14 Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this parallel legal these documents are immaterial to his appeal.
signification avoids a construction that will exclude the combination of the
alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone. 15 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, however, the materiality of those documents is
very apparent since the civil aspect of the case, from which he is appealing, was
Contrary to petitioner’s position, the range of permutation is not left to the likewise dismissed by the trial court on account of the same Demurrer.
pleader’s liking, but is dependent on the surrounding nature of the
allegations which may warrant that a verification be based either purely on Petitioner, nonetheless, posits that he subsequently submitted to the CA copies of
personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, or on both sources. the enumerated documents, save for the MeTC February 27, 2003 Order, as
attachments to his Motion for Reconsideration.
As pointed out by respondent, "authentic records" as a basis for verification bear
significance in petitions wherein the greater portions of the allegations are based The Rules, however, require that the petition must "be accompanied by clearly
on the records of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or the court a quo, and legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both
not solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court."22
himself could not have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, the truthfulness
of the statement in his petition16 before the CA that at the pre-trial conference A perusal of the petition filed before the CA shows that the only duplicate original
respondent admitted having received the letter of demand, because he (petitioner) or certified true copies attached as annexes thereto are the January 14, 2004 RTC
Order granting respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and the March 29, 2004 punishment of the offender. The parties are the People of the Philippines as the
RTC Order denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The copy of the plaintiff and the accused. In a criminal action, the private complainant is merely a
September 11, 2003 RTC Decision, which petitioner prayed to be reinstated, is not a witness for the State on the criminal aspect of the action. The second is the civil
certified true copy and is not even legible. Petitioner later recompensed though by action arising from the delict. The private complainant is the plaintiff and the
appending to his Motion for Reconsideration a duplicate original copy. accused is the defendant. There is a merger of the trial of the two cases to avoid
multiplicity of suits.26 (Underscoring supplied)
While petitioner averred before the CA in his Motion for Reconsideration that the
February 27, 2003 MeTC Order was already attached to his petition as Annex "G," It bears recalling that the MeTC acquitted respondent. 27 As a rule, a judgment of
Annex "G" bares a replicate copy of a different order, however. It was to this Court acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the
that petitioner belatedly submitted an uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
as an annex to his Reply to respondent’s Comment.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of
This Court in fact observes that the copy of the other MeTC Order, that dated May the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has
5, 2003, which petitioner attached to his petition before the CA is similarly generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the
uncertified as true. accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as far as he is
concerned. The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the
Since both Orders of the MeTC were adverse to him even with respect to the civil offended party and the accused.28
aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to submit them in the required form. 23
Technicality aside, the petition is devoid of merit.
In fine, petitioner fell short in his compliance with Section 2 (d) of Rule 42,
the mandatory tenor of which is discernible thereunder and is well settled.24 He has When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is
not, however, advanced any strong compelling reasons to warrant a relaxation of submitted for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the
the Rules, hence, his petition before the CA was correctly dismissed. accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.29 At that juncture,
the court is called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been waived or
and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the reserved.30
Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this we
stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules If the filing of a separate civil action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or
with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules the enforcement of civil liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of
applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or
is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any. 31
must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an
orderly and speedy administration of justice.25 (Emphasis supplied) For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly liable. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action
As to the third reason for the appellate court’s dismissal of his petition – failure to where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
implead the People of the Philippines as a party in the petition – indeed, as evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only
petitioner contends, the same is of no moment, he having appealed only the civil civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based
aspect of the case. Passing on the dual purpose of a criminal action, this Court upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted.32
ruled:
The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed extinguished if there is a
Unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there are two which the civil liability may arise did not exist. 33
actions involved in a criminal case. The first is the criminal action for the
In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce motion for reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil
countervailing evidence if the court denies the demurrer. 34 Such denial bears no aspect of the case continue.
distinction as to the two aspects of the case because there is a disparity of
evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. In Petitioner’s position is tenuous.
other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at
the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect.1awphi1.net Where a court
presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liability by mere crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily
preponderance of evidence. exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to resolve.

On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is insufficient as proof beyond One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising
reasonable doubt, it does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient to from the crime, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules
establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the demurrer, of Civil Procedure which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading
proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds. The only recognized that gives rise to the suit.39
instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil
aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil
As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to respondent, it cannot be determined
liability may arise did not exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil
with certainty from the records the nature of the alleged oral objections of
aspect of the case must perforce continue. Thus this Court, in Salazar v.
respondent to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer
People,35 held:
to evidence. Any waiver of the right to present evidence must be positively
demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has upon,40 hence, courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it.41
the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court also
declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
This Court therefore upholds respondent’s right to present evidence as reserved by
exist.36
his filing of leave of court to file the demurrer.

In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, DENIED.
any finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin, Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 65 which is DIRECTED to forthwith set Criminal Case No. 294690 for
Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He thereby recognized that
further proceedings only for the purpose of receiving evidence on the civil aspect of
there is basis for a remand.
the case.

Indicatively, respondent stands by his defense that he merely borrowed ₱1,500,000

with the remainder representing the interest, and that he already made a partial
payment of ₱1,590,000. Petitioner counters, however, that the payments made by
respondent pertained to other transactions.37 Given these conflicting claims which
are factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for the
parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.

Petitioner finally posits that respondent waived his right to present evidence on the
civil aspect of the case (1) when the grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal,
citing Section 1 of Rule 33,38 and (2) when respondent orally opposed petitioner’s
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, that the latter had already certified the case to this Court, which, in turn,
vs. promulgated its Decision on July 31, 1984 unaware of appellant Mario Navoa's
MARIO NAVOA, RAFAEL NAVOA, RICARDO SITCHON MACARIO SAGUINZA JOHN death. The judgment of conviction will thus have to be set aside as against him.
DOE and PETER DOE, defendants-appellants. However, the plea for extinguishment of the deceased's civil and criminal liability is
without merit. Only his criminal liability is extinguished by his death but the civil
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee, liability remains.2

Roman Daguna & Associates Law Offices for defendants-appellants. ACCORDINGLY, 1) the prayer for the acquittal of the two remaining accused is
hereby denied; 2) the dispositive portion of the Decision of this Court promulgated
RESOLUTION on July 31, 1984, is hereby modified to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, we affirm the judgment of conviction imposed upon

Rafael Navoa and Ricardo Sitchon and sentence them to
suffer reclusion perpetua. And since the guilt of Mario Navoa has
been established beyond reasonable doubt, his death during the
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
pendency of this appeal extinguishes only his criminal liability but
not his civil liability, so that, his estate and the accused Rafael
In this Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court promulgated on July
Navoa and Ricardo Sitchon are hereby sentenced to indemnify,
31, 1984, which affirmed the judgment of conviction upon defendants-appellants
jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim, Tomas Izon in the
Mario Navoa, Rafael Navoa, and Ricardo Sitchon and sentenced them to
amount of P30,000.00. With proportionate costs.
suffer reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify, jointly and solidarity, the heirs of the
victim, Tomas Izon, in the amount of P30,000.00, the two assigned errors are that
SO ORDERED.
"the basic finding of the Intermediate Appellate Court that the appellants shot and
killed the late Tomas Izon is not supported by the evidence on record," and "that
defendant-appellant Mario Navoa's death on June 14, 1984 properly manifested
before the Intermediate Appellate Court on June 20, 1984, had not been accorded
proper legal consideration in the Decision."

The first contention is untenable. The Appellate Court's conclusion that the
testimony of Macario Saguinza, a co-accused turned State witness, is substantially
correct was based on a careful and judicious review of the entire record, specifically
based on Exhibits "F", "G", "H" and the testimonies during the hearing of June 9,
1977. The same is true with the Appellate Court's conclusion that the minor
inconsistencies in the testimony of witness Baltazar de la Rosa strengthened rather
than weakened his credibility.1 Even assuming that the testimony of de la Rosa is
without probative value, still, the unrebutted testimony of Saguinza is more than
sufficient to sustain a conviction as it established not only conspiracy, treachery,
and evident premeditation, but even the very motive of defendants-appellants in
perpetrating the crime.

In respect of the second contention, it appears that the accused, Mario Navoa, died
on June 14, 1984 due to a cerebro-vascular attack as shown by the Death Certificate
attached to the Motion for Reconsideration. When counsel for the accused
manifested the fact before the Appellate Court, on June 20, 1984. he was unaware
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Cresenciano's stomach, after which Esperidion Badeo hacked Cresenciano's back.
vs. Cresenciano fell down on his back. 2
MANUEL BADEO, ESPERIDION BADEO, ROGELIO BADEO (at large) and BONIFACIO
TANGPUS (at large), defendants. MANUEL BADEO and ESPERIDION Cresenciano shouted after he had fallen. Noticing that Cresenciano was still alive, Rogelio came back and "finished him

BADEO, defendants-appellants. off." 3

During the attack, Eñega was as near to the group at seven arms length. 4 She
did not go nearer because she was afraid. 5 Instead, she ran home taking a shortcut
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. through the property of a certain Adriano. She immediately informed her husband,
Public Attorney's Office for Manuel Badeo. Gregorio, about the incident. She told him, however, not to go out anymore to
inform Cresenciano's relatives about the hacking incident, as it was already dark.
She eventually told Cresenciano's relatives about his fate in the morning of the
following day, Sunday. 6

FERNAN, C.J.:

The body of Cresenciano, who was single and 42 years old when he died, was autopsied on March 23, 1981 by Dr. Lesmes C.
In this appeal, father and son Esperidion and Manuel Badeo, seek the reversal of
Lumen, the municipal health officer of Dagami, Leyte. The following findings appear on the medical certificate (Exh. A) issued by
the July 5, 1985 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Leyte, Branch XV at
Dr. Lumen:
Palo, 1 the dispositive portion of which reads:

1. Hacking wound on the skull, from vertex to left temporal area, 10 inches long, 1 inch wide, 2 inches deep with
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the two accused
exposure of brain substance
Manuel Badeo and Esperidion Badeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Murder and hereby sentences said two accused to the penalty
2. Hacking wound, left supraclavicular area, 2.5 inches long, .5 inch wide, .5 ench deep
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of Cresenciano Germanes
the sum of P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay each half of the costs. 3. Hacking wound, extending from left subcostal area to the level of the third rib, 9.5 inches long, 2 inches wide, 1
inch deep

It appearing that the two accused Manuel Badeo and Esperidion Badeo
were detained since December 4, 1984, when they were arrested by the 4. Stab wounds at the inframammary area, left

police authorities of Tanauan, Leyte, they should be credited with the full
time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if they a) 2 inches long, .5 inch wide, 2 inches deep
agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners; other wise, they shall be credited with b) .5 inch long, .5 inch wide, 2 inches deep
4/5 only of the time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment. c) .5 inchlong, .5 inch wide, 2 inches deep

SO ORDERED. 5. Stab wound, right iliac region, level of the umbilicus, 2.5 inches long, 2 inches wide, 1 inch deep

According to the sole prosecution eyewitness Eñega Abrio (Iñega Abreo), at around 6. Longitudinal, oblique, abrasion at left iliac region, 2.5 inches long
six o'clock in the evening of March 21, 1981, she was walking on her way home.
Cresenciano Germanes was walking ahead of her. Near the house of Esperidion
7. Hacking wound, extending from right to left lumbar areas crossing the vertebral column, 7 inches long, 1 inch
Badeo, four men attacked Cresenciano. Being about ten arms length away, she saw
wide, 2 inches deep
Manuel Badeo hack Cresenciano at the back with a bolo measuring around fifty-five
centimeters in length. Rogelio Badeo then hacked Cresenciano with another long
8. Hacking wound, left suprascapular region, 5 inches long, 2 inches wide, 1.5 inches deep
bolo also at the back. Bonifacio Tangpus followed with a stab at the right portion of
 9. Hacking wound, left shoulder area (deltoid portion), 7 inches long, 3 inches wide, 2 inches deep. the latter had shown it to her when he drank liquor at
store. 9

Esperidion Badeo, on the other hand, denied being at the scene when the killing occurred. He was then in the mountain in

Uldarico Germanes, a nephew of Cresenciano, believed that his uncle was killed by the four because Cresenciano was Saransang making a kaingin on the land owned by Estelita Tangpus. Saransang was more than seven kilometers from barangay

instrumental in dividing the land being tenanted by Manuel two portions. One portion was to be retained by Manuel while the Hilabago and the distance could only be negotiated by foot through a trail used by sled-drawing carabaos. With him in the

other half would be tenanted by him (Uldarico). He accompanied Cresenciano when the latter told Manuel of the new mountain were Estelita, Rogelio Badeo and Bonifacio Tangpus. He left the place only on March 22, 1981 when his wife fetched

arrangement. Manuel did not like the arrangement because according to him, he could still work on the whole area. 7 him because his son Manuel had wounded somebody. He went to Hilabago but he immediately left for the mountain because he
was afraid that revenge might be taken on him. 10
Estelita Rubo corroborated Esperidion's alibi
claiming that Esperidion did not leave the kaingin area even after work. 11

Sometime in Jurte, 1981, Esperidion and Rogelio Badeo executed a joint affidavit denying participation in the killing Cresenciano.
Manuel Badeo admitted having hacked Cresenciano but averred that he did so in self-defense. According to him, he was at home
They affirmed therein that they had been in the homestead owned by Bonifacio Tangpus since March 14, 1981 when the crime
in the afternoon of March 21, 1981 as he was cutting the grass in his home in barangay Katipunan. Later in the afternoon, he
transpired. 12
went to barangay Hilabago to ask for kerosene from his mother arriving there at past six o'clock in the evening. Bonifacio Tangpus did not execute any affidavit nor surrender to the
authorities. Neither was he apprehended.
While he was at his mother's house, his brother-in-law, Rosito Dumpang and. the latter's nephew Gabriel, passed by. They
invited him to go home with them. As they were walking, they met Cresenciano Germanes behind the copra drier of Manuel's For his part, Manuel executed a counter-affidavit dated June 1, 1981 stating that in
mother. Cresenciano asked him where he was going. When Manuel answered that he was going home, Cresenciano held him by the afternoon of March 21, 1981, as he was cutting the grass in his lawn, Sagino
his shirt and pointed a gun at him. As Manuel was about an arm's length away, he noticed that Cresenciano was reeking with the Abrio (sic), the husband of Iñiga (Eñega), approached him and intimated to him that
smell of tuba. he had a big problem because Iñiga and Cresenciano were having an illicit
relationship. Sagino said that the relationship downgraded his honor because it was
While pointing the gun at him, Cresenciano threatened to kill Manuel. After telling Cresenciano that they had nothing to fight known to everyone their place. Sagino vowed that something would happen to
about, Manuel retreated to a coconut tree, went around it, drew a bolo and hacked Cresenciano hitting him on the head. Then Cresenciano.
he stabbed Cresenciano's stomach. Manuel ran towards Rosito and Gabriel Dumpang who, in turn, "castigated" Cresenciano.
Manuel told them to stop punishing Cresenciano but the two did not heed his advice. According to the same affidavit, when Manuel arrived at his mother's house to get
kerosene, his mother, Maria Badeo, Estelita Tangpuz (sic), Elena Borja, Cresencio
Manuel did not see Eñega Abreo when he hacked Cresenciano. Neither was his father, Esperidion, around. But he noticed that (sic) Germanes and Sagino Abrio were drinking liquor. As Manuel was about to
when Rosito hacked Cresenciano, the latter's pistol fell from his hand. Manuel picked it up and later surrendered it to barangay leave, Germanes forced him to drink liquor. After taking one glass, Manuel turned
captain Andrea Olimberio. When Manuel surrendered to the police authorities, he did not implicate Rosito and Gabriel Dumpang to leave but Germanes grabbed his shirt. Sagino then followed Germanes, hacked
because they had threatened that should he mention their names, they would kill him. That threat was also the reason why, him "many times" while telling Manuel that it was a problem he could handle. Upon
together with Esperidion, he transferred his residence to Tanauan, Leyte. seeing that Germanes had a firearm tucked in his waist, Sagino ordered Manuel to
get it. Manuel and Germanes grappled for possession of the firearm and as soon as
Manuel took hold of it, Sagino told him to surrender it to the police. 13

The contents of said counter-affidavit as well as Manuel's insistence at the preliminary investigation that it was Eñega Abrio's
Manuel stated in court that Eñega Abreo testified against him because her husband, Sabino (sic), was the first suspect in the
husband who was responsible for Cresenciano Germanes' killing were totally discredited by the investigating fiscal who noted
killing of Cresenciano as there was "bad blood" between Sabino and Cresenciano. 8
that during Manuel's 20-day detention, he never mentioned to the police Sagino's involvement in the crime. The investigating
fiscal concluded that the rather belated facts revealed by Manuel were
Andrea Olimberio, who was the barangay captain of barangay Katipunan when the incident occurred, corroborated Manuel's designed "to coerce or force Eñega Abrio from becoming a witness for the complainant." 14
claim that he surrendered to her. According to Andrea, at about eleven o'clock in the evening of March 21, 1981, Manuel,
accompanied by his wife and sister, came to her house and told her that he had killed Cresenciano Germanes. Manuel
On February 8, 1982, an information for murder was filed against Manuel, Esperidion and Rogelio Badeo and Bonifacio
surrendered to her a pistol which he had taken from the victim. Andrea knew that the pistol belonged to Cresenciano because
Tangpus. 15
They were charged with having conspired to kill and treacherously killing
Cresenciano.
On September 24,1984, the assistant provincial fiscal filed a motion for the issuance offender occurs before final judgment. According to Justice Aquino, the term
of an alias warrant of arrest. 16Through the alias warrant of arrest issued by the " pecuniary penalties" (las pecuniarias) in Article 89 refers to fine and costs as
court, on December 4, 1984, Manuel Badeo and Esperidion Badeo were distinguished from " pecuniary liability" (responsabilidades pecunarias) in Article 38
apprehended by the police. 17 which include reparation and indemnity.

On arraignment, Manuel pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide while Esperidion pleaded not guilty to the crime
As every crime gives rise to a penal or criminal action for the punishment of the
charged. Manuel invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty 18
and voluntary surrender. guilty party, and also to a civil action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the
However, the court ruled that a plea of guilty to a lesser offense demanded the damage and indemnification for the losses 25 whether the particular act or omission
conformity of the offended party. 19 Inasmuch as Catalina Germanes, the mother of is done intentionally or negligently or whether or not punishable by
the victim, was not agreeable to the plea entered by Manuel, the court considered law, 26 subsequent decisions of the Court held that while the criminal liability of an
the plea as one of not guilty. appellant is extinguished by his death, his civil liability subsists. 27 In such case, the
heirs of the deceased appellant are substituted as parties in the criminal case and
After trial, the court rendered the aforementioned decision. Manuel and Esperidion his estate shall answer for his civil liability. 28
appealed to this Court contending that the trial court erred in not appreciating the
In the light of the foregoing, we reconsider the resolution August 21, 1991 insofar as it considers as extinguished Esperidion
justifying circumstance of self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
Badeo's civil liability, in order to determine whether or not such liability exist. 29
surrender in favor of Manuel, and in not giving weight and credence to the alibi of
Esperidion.
Well-settled is the rule that where the accused admits having authored the death of the victim and his defense is anchored on
self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
On August 10, 1990, Esperidion died of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to
prosecution. 30
pulmonary tuberculosis at the prison hospital in Muntinlupa, Metro Otherwise his conviction is inescapable. 31
Manila. 20 Inasmuch as no final judgment had as yet been rendered, in the
resolution of August 21, 1991, the case against Esperidion was dismissed with Of the three requisites of self-defense as stated in Article 11 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (a) unlawful aggression; (b)

costs de oficio and entry of judgment was made on August 22, 1991. 21 reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of person
defending himself, the first requisite is indispensable 32
for without it, there is nothing to prevent or
On September 17, 1991, the Solicitor General filed a motion for the reconsideration of said resolution alleging that while the
repel. After a close scrutiny of the records, the Court finds that appellant Manuel
criminal liability of appellant Esperidion Badeo had been extinguished by his death pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Badeo failed to prove unlawful aggression.
Code, his civil liability arising from the criminal offense subsisted in accordance with Articles 1231 and 1161 of the Civil Code in
relation to Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code and the ruling in People vs. Pancho, 145 SCRA 323. Hence, as provided for in
Manuel contends that he was the object of Cresenciano's unlawful aggression
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, upon proper notice, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant should appear
because the latter held his shirt and points a gun at him. His testimony, however,
as substitute parties herein insofar as the deceased's civil liability for the crime is concerned. 22
was completely uncorroborated. He failed even to present Cresenciano's gun in
evidence notwithstanding his claim that he surrendered it to the barangay captain
We find merit in the motion for reconsideration. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally
and later, to the police. 33 Indeed, we agree with the trial court that if there really
extinguished "by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
was a gun, Cresenciano would have used it not only against Manuel but also against
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment." In People vs. Alison, 23
the Court, upon Rosito and Gabriel Dumpang. 34
the recommendation of the then Solicitor General who was required to comment
on the information that appellant Alison had died at the prison hospital, resolved Moreover, the location, number and seriousness of the wounds sustained by Cresenciano belie the claim of self-defense. 35
Of
that, there being no final judgment as yet, "the criminal and civil liability (sic) of the nine wounds found on Cresenciano's body, Manuel admitted having inflicted
Alison was extinguished by his death." the two wounds which the physician performed the autopsy considered as fatal: the
hacking wound on the skull and the stabbing wound on the stomach. 36 As such,
The Alison resolution was the basis of the resolution in People vs. Satorre 24 similarly even without the concerted assistance of the other accused, Manuel could have
dismissing the case against the deceased appellant. In a separate opinion in the nonetheless produced the lethal consequence: the death of Cresenciano.
resolution, then Associate Justice Ramon C. Aquino stated that as to the personal
penalties, criminal liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
 In this case, Esperidion was implicated by the uncorroborated testimony of sole prosecution eyewitness Iñego Abrio. Her
Manuel's assertion that the credibility of the sole prosecution eyewitness is
identification of Esperidion as one of the perpetrators of the crime is, however, short of the positiveness and reliability essential
questionable is belated if not baseless. He insists that Eñega had an illicit
for conviction. 48
relationship with the victim and that if her testimony were true, she would not have As several people committed the crime, it is probable that Abrio
lost time in reporting the murder to Cresenciano's relatives. On the issue of mistook Esperidion for another person considering that according to her, the attack
credibility, we find no reason to depart from the settled rule that the findings of the was perpetrated when it was already getting dark. This does not however, totally
trial court on the credibility of witnesses should be accorded the highest respect discredit her entire testimony especially the portion thereof which imputes on
because it had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and to Manuel the authorship of the fatal hacking blows on Cresenciano. Court may
discern if a witness was telling the truth. 37 The imputation of an illicit relationship believe one part of a testimony and disbelieve another part. 49
between the prosecution witness and the victim which was not shown other than
by the counter-affidavit of Manuel and which the investigating fiscal had even
discredited, is not an acceptable evidence insofar as proof of improper motive on
the part of Eñega is concerned. 38 Neither may Eñega's initial reluctance to WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed insofar as appellant Manuel Badeo is concerned subject to the
denounce Manuel and his other co-accused as the killers immediately after the modifications that he shall serve the penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayormaximum to seventeen (17) years,
commission of the crime, affect the probative value of her testimony, specifically four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum and indemnify the heirs of Cresenciano Germanes in the amount
her positive identification of Manuel as one of the perpetrators of the crime. of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000).
Usually triggered by fear, such reluctance is common and has been judicially
declared not to affect credibility. 39 The resolution of August 21, 1991 is hereby reconsidered insofar as it considers as extinguished Esperidion Badeo's civil liability.
However, finding that Esperidion Badeo should be acquitted as he did not commit the crime imputed to him, no civil liability is
However, we agree with the Solicitor General that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in
hereby imposed on him. No costs.
favor of Manuel. Ordinarily, where there has been actual arrest, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be
invoked. 40
While it is true that Manuel was arrested with his father on December 4, SO ORDERED.
1981, the records show that Manuel did surrender: first, to the barangay captain
and, in the morning of March 22, 1981, to the police of Dagami. 41 In fact, after his
surrender, Manuel was detained for twenty days. 42

The killing of Crecenciano is qualified by treachery which is shown by the suddenness by which he was attacked. Under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. There being one mitigating
circumstance, the penalty imposable shall be the minimum period. 43
Applying the indeterminate sentence
law, proper penalty is ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as
minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal maximum as maximum penalty.

Anent Esperidion Badeo's civil liability, we find that there is no basis for its
imposition in view of the absence of a clear showing that he committed the crime
imputed to him. 44 Esperidion could not have been at the scene of the crime
because the kaingin area where he had been staying since January 7, 1983 until he
was fetched by his wife on March 22, 1985 45 was a good five-hour hike away
through a trail. 46 Alibi is generally considered a weak defense but it assumes
importance where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays
concretenes on the question of whether or not the accused committed the
crime. 47