DAYAP v SENDIONG

FACTS:

Dayap was charged with reckless

imprudence resulting to homicide, less
serious physical injuries and damage to
property. It was alleged that Dayap was the
driver of a cargo truck which figured in an
accident with a Colt Galant driven by Lou
Gene Sendiong causing instant death to the
latter and less serious physical injuries to the
latters passenger. The MTC granted Dayap
Demurrer
to
Evidence
saying
that
prosecution failed to establish that Dayap
was really the one driving the cargo truck.
The MTC further stated that prosecution also
wasnt able to prove the death and injuries of
the victim as there were not death certificate
and medical certificates submitted as
evidence. The MTC gave credence to the
evidence of the Dayap, showing that it was
the victims car which swerved into the cargo
trucks lane thereby being the proximate
cause of the accident. The MTC relied on the
accident sketch contained in the police
blotter to support this conclusion.
Aggrieved, Sendiong filed a petition
for certiorari under 65 with the RTC. The RTC
affirmed the acquittal of Dayap but ordered
the case remanded to the MTC for the
hearing of the civil aspect.
Sendiong filed a petition for review
(42) with the CA. the CA concluded that it
was the RTC which had jurisdiction and not
the MTC. The CA explained that according to
Cuyos v Garcia, jurisdiction over damage to
property cases should be determined by the
imposable fine and not the penalty for the
physical injuries and following BP 129, MTC
only has jurisdiction over those felonies with
imposable fine not exceeding 10,000. Since
in this case, no proof of total damage was
given and Sendiong claims 1.5M in civil
damages, the same should have been
brought before the RTC.
ISSUE:

Whether or not a grant of a demurrer

is reviewable ONLY UNDER 65
Whether or not remand to the MTC of
the case for the determination of civil liability
was proper NO
HELD:
A grant of a demurrer to evidence is
tantamount to an acquittal and cannot be
reviewed
on
appeal
otherwise,
the
constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy is offended. A demurrer must be
filed after the prosecution rests its case. It
entails and appreciation of the evidence of
the prosecution and when the same if found
insufficient to support a conviction beyond

reasonable doubt, the demurrer is proper.

Once granted, the court must enter a partial
judgment of conviction but must continue
with the trial for the reception of the defense
evidence on the civil aspect. This is because
at the moment the demurrer is granted, only
prosecutions evidence (both as to the
criminal and civil aspect) is on record.
However, the grant of a demurrer may still be
reviewed by the courts but only on grounds
of GADLEJ under rule 65. In this case, there
being not finding of GADLEJ on the part of
the MTC, the demurrer stands.
The acquittal of an accused does not
carry with it the extinction of civil liability
when (1) acquittal was based on reasonable
doubt (2) court determines that there is only
a civil liability (3) the civil liability of the
accused does not arise or is not based on the
crime for which he was acquitted. On the
other hand, acquittal of an accused carries
the extinction of civil liability when (1) there
is a finding on the final judgment in the
criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist
or (2) the accused did not commit the acts or
omission imputed to him. In this case, the
acquittal by the MTC was based on findings
that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist and that
petitioner did not commit the acts or
omission imputed to him; hence, petitioners
civil liability has been extinguished by his
acquittal. Thus, because there was no civil
liability to hear, the case should not have
been remanded to the MTC

People vs Mamantak G.R.

No.174659 July 28, 2009
Facts:
At about 3:00 p.m. on December 13,
1999, Teresa went with Christopher
and her elder sister Zenaida to a
McDonalds outlet in the KP Tower in
Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila.
Teresa and Christopher looked for a
vacant table while Zenaida
proceeded to order their food.
Shortly after Teresa took her seat,
Christopher, a two-year old minor,
followed Zenaida to the counter.
Barely had Christopher gone from

his mothers sight when she realized

that he had disappeared. She and
her sister frantically looked for him
inside and outside the premises of
the fast food outlet, to no avail. As
their continued search for the child
was futile, they reported him missing
to the nearest police detachment.
The following day, Teresa went to
several TV and radio stations to
inform the public of the loss of
Christopher and to appeal for help
and information. On February 25,
2001, Teresa received a call from a
woman who sounded like a Muslim.
The caller claimed to have custody of
Christopher and asked for P30,000 in
exchange for the boy. On March 27,
2001, the same Muslim-sounding
woman called and instructed Teresa
to get a recent photo of her son from
the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim
Center in Quiapo, Manila. True
enough, when Teresa went there,
someone gave her a recent picture of
Christopher. She then contacted the
mysterious woman through the
cellphone number the latter had
previously given her. When the
woman instructed her to
immediately board a ship for
Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she
had not raised the
ransom money yet. They then
agreed to conduct the pay off in the
morning of April 7, 2001 at Pitangs
Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del
Norte. Teresa sought the help of the
Presidential Anti-Organized Crime
Task Force (PAOCTF). A team was
formed and Police Officer (PO)3 Juliet
Palafox was designated to act as
Teresas niece. Together with the
PAOCTF team, Teresa left for
Mindanao on April 4, 2001. On April
7, 2001, they arrived in Iligan City

and proceeded to the designated

meeting place.
At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa
and PO3 Palafox were waiting at
Pitangs Carinderia, two women
came. They were Raga Sarapida
Mamantak and Likad Sarapida
Taurak. Mamantak approached
Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked
who they were waiting for. Teresa
replied that they were waiting for a
certain Rocma Bato, the name
written at the back of the picture she
received in Jalal Restaurant in Manila.
She showed the photo to Mamantak
who stated that she knew Bato.
Mamantak then told Teresa that she
would ask a cousin of Bato if the
latter was already in Kapatagan.
Mamantak turned to Taurak,
supposedly the cousin of Bato.
Taurak came near Teresa and PO3
Palafox and informed them that she
had Christopher. Taurak asked Teresa
and PO3 Palafox to come with her
but they refused. Taurak reluctantly
agreed to leave Mamantak with them
while she fetched Christopher.
Several hours later, in the afternoon
of the same day, Taurak returned
and told Teresa that Christopher was
in a nearby ice plant. She asked
Teresa to go with her but the latter
insisted on their agreement that the
boy be handed over at the
carinderia. Taurak relented, left and
came back after several minutes
with Christopher. Upon seeing her
son, Teresa cried and embraced him.
However, the child was unmoved. He
no longer recognized nor understood
her for he could only speak in the
Muslim dialect. When asked who he
was,
the boy gave a Muslim name with
Taurak as surname Mamantak and

Taurak interrupted Teresa and

demanded the ransom money. She
answered that her niece had it and
pointed to PO3 Palafox. Thereafter,
Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded
a jeepney which was parked outside,
under Tauraks watchful eyes. Inside
the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the
ransom money to Mamantak. At this
juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the preagreed signal and the PAOCTF team
then closed in and arrested
Mamantak and Taurak. Christopher
relearned Tagalog after a month and
gradually began to forget the
incident. On the other hand, Teresa
almost lost her sanity. At the time
Christopher was kidnapped, she was
pregnant with her third child. The
child, born very sickly, eventually
died. The sisters Mamantak and
Taurak were charged with kidnapping
for ransom.
Issue:
Whether the two accused are guilty
of violating the crime of Kidnapping
for Ransom under Article 267 of the
RPC, as amended by RA No. 7659?
Held:
After evaluating the respective
evidence of the parties, the trial
court rendered a decision on
November 30, 2004 finding Taurak
and Mamantak guilty as charged.
Both accused LIKAD SARAPIDA
TAURAK and accused RAGA
SARAPIDA [MAMANTAK] GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as
amended by RA No. 7659 and both
are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Both accused are hereby jointly and
severally ordered to pay the

Christopher Basario represented by

the mother, [Ma.] Teresa Basario the
amount of PHP50,000.00 as
compensatory damages and
PHP50,000.00 as moral damages.
With costs against the accused.
The essence of the crime of
kidnapping is the actual deprivation
of the victims liberty coupled with
the
intent of the accused to effect it. It
includes not only the imprisonment
of a person but also the deprivation
of his liberty in whatever form and
for whatever length of time.[11] And
liberty is not limited
to mere physical restraint but
embraces ones right to enjoy his
God-given faculties subject only to
such restraints necessary for the
common welfare. Ransom means
money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a
captured person that will release him
from captivity. No specific form of
ransom is required to consummate
the felony of kidnapping for ransom
as long as the ransom is intended as
a bargaining chip in exchange for the
victims freedom. The amount of and
purpose for the ransom is
immaterial.
Taurak and Mamantak appealed to
the Court of Appeals. However, the
appeal is DENIED. In a decision dated
March 31, 2006, the appellate court
ruled that the trial court erred in not
considering the demand for P30,000
as a demand for ransom. Such
circumstance required the imposition
of the death penalty. Thus, the
appellate court affirmed the
conviction of Taurak and Mamantak
with modification amending the

penalty from reclusion perpetua to

death. Pursuant to Section 13, Rule
124 as amended by Administrative
Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the appellate
court certified the case to this Court
and accordingly ordered the
elevation of the records.
Safeguard Security Agency, Inc
vs Tangco
G.R. No.165732
December 14, 2006

Facts:
On November 3, 1997, at about 2:50
p.m., Evangeline Tangco
(Evangeline) went to Ecology Bank,
Katipunan Branch, Quezon City, to
renew her time deposit per advise of
the bank's cashier as she would sign
a specimen card. Evangeline, a duly
licensed firearm holder with
corresponding permit to carry the
same outside her residence,
approached security guard Pajarillo,
who was stationed outside the bank,
and pulled out her firearm from her
bag to deposit the same for
safekeeping. Suddenly, Pajarillo shot
Evangeline with his service shotgun
hitting her in the abdomen instantly
causing her death.
Lauro Tangco, Evangeline's husband,
together with his six minor children
(respondents) filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, a
criminal case of Homicide against
Pajarillo, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 0-97-73806 and assigned to
Branch 78. Respondents reserved
their right to file a separate civil
action in the said criminal case. The

RTC of Quezon City subsequently

convicted Pajarillo of Homicide in its
Decision dated January 19, 2000. On
appeal to the CA, the RTC decision
was affirmed with modification as to
the penalty in a Decision dated July
31, 2000. Entry of Judgment was
made on August 25, 2001.
Meanwhile, on January 14, 1998,
respondents filed with RTC, Branch
273, Marikina City, a complaint for
damages against Pajarillo for
negligently shooting Evangeline and
against Safeguard for failing to
observe the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the
damage committed by its security
guard. Respondents prayed for
actual, moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees.
In their Answer, petitioners denied
the material allegations in the
complaint and alleged that
Safeguard exercised the diligence of
a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of Pajarillo;
that Evangeline's death was not due
to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter
acted only in self-defense.
Petitioners set up a compulsory
counterclaim for moral damages and
attorney's fees.
Issues:
(a) Whether respondent can file civil
liability ex delito under Article 100 of
the Revised Penal Code?
(b) Whether independent civil
liabilities, such as those (a) not
arising from an act or omission
complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa

contractual or obligations arising

from law under Article 31 of the Civil
Code, intentional torts under Articles
32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code?
(c) Whether the injured party is
granted a right to file an action
independent and distinct from the
criminal action under Article 33 of
the Civil Code. Either of these
liabilities may be enforced against
the offender subject to the caveat
under Article 2177 of the Civil Code
that the offended party cannot
recover damages twice for the same
act or omission or under both
causes?
Held:
The RTC found respondents to be
entitled to damages. It rejected
Pajarillo's claim that he merely acted
in self-defense. It gave no credence
to Pajarillo's bare claim that
Evangeline was seen roaming around
the area prior to the shooting
incident since Pajarillo had not made
such report to the head office and
the police authorities. The RTC
further ruled that being the guard on
duty, the situation demanded that he
should have exercised proper
prudence and necessary care by
asking Evangeline for him to
ascertain the matter instead of
shooting her instantly; that Pajarillo
had already been convicted of
Homicide in Criminal Case No. 0-9773806; and that he also failed to
proffer proof negating liability in the
instant case.
The RTC also found Safeguard as

employer of Pajarillo to be jointly

and severally liable with Pajarillo. It
ruled that while it may be conceded
that Safeguard had perhaps
exercised care in the selection of its
employees, particularly of Pajarillo,
there was no sufficient evidence to
show that Safeguard exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family
in the supervision of its employee;
that Safeguard's evidence simply
showed that it required its guards to
attend trainings and seminars which
is not the supervision contemplated
under the law; that supervision
includes not only the issuance of
regulations and instructions designed
for the protection of persons and
property, for the guidance of their
servants and employees, but also the
duty to see to it that such
regulations and instructions are
faithfully complied with.
In finding that Safeguard is only
subsidiarily liable, the CA held that
the applicable provisions are not
Article 2180 in relation to Article
2176 of the Civil Code, on quasidelicts, but the provisions on civil
liability arising from felonies under
the Revised Penal Code; that since
Pajarillo had been found guilty of
Homicide in a final and executory
judgment and is said to be serving
sentence in Muntinlupa, he must be
adjudged civilly liable under the
provisions of Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code since the civil
liability recoverable in the criminal
action is one solely dependent upon
conviction, because said liability
arises from the offense charged and
no other; that this is also the civil

liability that is deemed extinguished

with the extinction of the penal
liability with a pronouncement that
the fact from which the civil action
might proceed does not exist; that
unlike in civil liability arising from
quasi-delict, the defense of diligence
of a good father of a family in the
employment and supervision of
employees is inapplicable and
irrelevant in civil liabilities based on
crimes or ex-delicto; that Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code provides
that the liability of an employer for
the civil liability of their employees is

only subsidiary, not joint or solidary.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review
is DENIED. The Decision dated July
16, 2004 of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
the civil liability of petitioner
Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. is
SOLIDARY and PRIMARY under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code.