Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jarantilla V CA
Jarantilla V CA
Pr i v a t e re s p o n d e n t , a s th e c o m p l a i n i n g witness therein,
did not reserve his right to institute a s e p a r a t e c i v i l a c t i o n
and he intervened in the prosecution of said
criminal case through a private prosecutor. Petitioner was
acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt".- On
October 30, 1974, private respondent fi led a complaint
against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
Branch IV, docketed therein a s C i v i l C a s e N o. 9976,
and which civil actioni n v o l v e d t h e s a m e s u b j e c t m
a t t e r a n d a c t complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027.
ISSUE
W O N t h e p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t , w h o w a s t h e compl
ainant in thecriminal action for physicali n j u r i e s t h r u
r e c k l e s s i m p r u d e n c e a n d w h o participated in the p
ro s e c u t i o n t h e re o f w i th o u t re s e r v i n g t h e c i v i l a c ti o n
a r i s i n g f ro m t h e a c t o r omission complained of, can file a
separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or
omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was
adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal
HELD
YES- The 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 bar him from filing such
separate civil action for damages.
Ratio
The allegations of the complaint fi led by the private
respondent supports and is constitutive of a case for a quasi-
delict committed by the petitioner. The Court has also heretofore
ruled in Elcano vs. Hill that:... 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 also actually charged
criminally, to recover damages on
both scores; and would be entitled in such
eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming
the awards made in the two cases vary.
I n o t h e r w o rd s , t h e ex t i n c t i o n o f c i v i l l i a b i l i t y referred
to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil
liability founded on Article 100o f th e
Re v i s e d Pe n a l C o d e ; w h e re a s th e c i v i l liability for the
same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as
a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the
criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or
has not been committed by the accused . . .- The afforested case
of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & TaxiCo., Inc., et al. involved virtually
the same factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the
conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the
failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to
fi l e a s e p a r a t e c i v i l c a s e i s n o t f a t a l ; t h a t h i s
intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a
separate civil action for damages, especially considering that
the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the two cases were
anchored on two different causes of action, the criminal case
being on a violation of Article 365 of the 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 was not passed upon and resolved.
Consequently, said civil case may proceed as authorized by
Article 29 of the Civil Code.- Under the present jurisprudential
milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable
doubt, it could very well make a pronouncement on the civil
liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition
for mandamus to compel the trial court to
i n c l u d e s u c h c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n t h e j u d g m e n t o f acqui
ttal. And that the failure of the court to make any
pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to
the civil liability of the accused amounts to a
reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated
and determined in a separate action. The
r u l e s n o w h e re p ro v i d e th a t i f t h e court fails to
determine the civil liability it becomes no longer
enforceable.