Rule 111 | CrimPro | Case Doctrines
Proton Pilipinas Corporation vs. Republic
Same; Same; Same; Taxation; In the case at
bar, the civil case for the collection of unpaid
customs duties and taxes cannot be simultaneously
instituted and determined in the same proceedings
as the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan as
it cannot be made the civil aspect of the criminal
cases filed before it; Said obligation is not a
consequence of the felonious acts charged in the
criminal proceeding nor is it a mere civil liability
arising from crime that could be wiped out by the
judicial declaration of non-existence of the criminal
acts charged.While it is true that according to the
aforesaid Section 4, of Republic Act No. 8249, the
institution of the criminal action automatically
carries with it the institution of the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability, however, in the case at
bar, the civil case for the collection of unpaid
customs duties and taxes cannot be simultaneously
instituted and determined in the same proceedings
as the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan,
as it cannot be made the civil aspect of the
criminal cases filed before it. It should be borne in
mind that the tax and the obligation to pay the
same are all created by statute; so are its collection
and payment governed by statute. The payment of
taxes is a duty which the law requires to be paid.
Said obligation is not a consequence of the
felonious acts charged in the criminal proceeding
nor is it a mere civil liability arising from crime that
could be wiped out by the judicial declaration of
non-existence of the criminal acts charged. Hence,
the payment and collection of customs duties and
taxes in itself creates civil liability on the part of the
taxpayer. Such civil liability to pay taxes arises from
the fact, for instance, that one has engaged
himself in business, and not because of any criminal
act committed by him.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Criminal
Law; Under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, it
is far-fetched that the civil case for the collection of
unpaid customs duties and taxes can be
simultaneously instituted with the criminal cases for
violation of Section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act No.
3019 filed before the Sandiganbayan nor can it be
made the civil aspect of such criminal cases; The
civil liability arising from crimes is different from the
civil liability contemplated in the case of taxation.
Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates
the matters covered by the civil liability arising from
crimes, to wit: Article 104. What is included in civil
liability.The civil liability established in articles 100,
1
101, 102 and 103 of this Code includes: 1.
Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3.
Indemnification for consequential damages. With
the above provision of the Revised Penal Code, it is
far-fetched that the civil case for the collection of
unpaid customs duties and taxes can be
simultaneously instituted with the criminal cases for
violation of Section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act No.
3019 filed before the Sandiganbayan nor can it be
made the civil aspect of such criminal cases. All the
matters covered by the civil liability in the aforesaid
article have something to do with the crimes
committed by the wrongdoer. Clearly, the civil
liability for violation of any criminal statute, like
Republic Act No. 3019, exists because of the
criminal act done by the offender. In other words,
the civil obligation flows from and is created by the
criminal liability, thus, the civil liability arising from
crimes is different from the civil liability
contemplated in the case of taxation.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan is only with respect, among other
things, to the criminal cases for violation of Republic
Act No. 3019, but has no authority to take
cognizance of the civil case to collect the unpaid
customs duties and taxes of the petitioner.The
RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over
Civil Case No. 02-102650. The jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan is only with respect, among other
things, to the criminal cases for violation of Republic
Act No. 3019, particularly in this case, Section 3(e)
and (j) thereof, but it has no authority to take
cognizance of the civil case to collect the unpaid
customs duties and taxes of the petitioner.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; The
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what
civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal
prosecutionit is only the civil liability of the
accused arising from the crime charged that is
deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action.
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil
actions are deemed instituted in a criminal
prosecution. x x x Only the civil liability of the
accused arising from the crime charged is deemed
impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is,
unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately, or
institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the
subsidiary civil liability of the employer under Article
103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced
by execution on the basis of the judgment of
conviction meted out to the employee.
Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules deleted the
requirement of reserving independent civil actions
and allowed these to proceed separately from
criminal actionswhat is deemed instituted in
every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising
from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex
delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-
delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts.It is clear that
the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of reserving
independent civil actions and allowed these to
proceed separately from criminal actions. Thus, the
civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code shall remain separate,
distinct and independent of any criminal
prosecution based on the same act. Here are some
direct consequences of such revision and omission:
1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on
the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal
prosecution, since they are not deemed included
therein. 2. The institution or the waiver of the right to
file a separate civil action arising from the crime
charged does not extinguish the right to bring such
action. 3. The only limitation is that the offended
party cannot recover more than once for the same
act or omission. What is deemed instituted in every
criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from
the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto),
but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts,
contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil
action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability
in the criminal prosecution remains, and the
offended party maysubject to the control of the
prosecutorstill intervene in the criminal action, in
order to protect the remaining civil interest therein.
Same; Same; Subsidiary Civil
Liability; Parties; The cases dealing with the
subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare
that, strictly speaking, the employers are not parties
to the criminal cases instituted against their
employees; While employers may assist their
employees to the extent of supplying the latters
lawyers, the former cannot act independently on
their own behalf, but can only defend the
accused.In its Memorandum, petitioner cited a
comprehensive list of cases dealing with the
subsidiary liability of employers. Thereafter, it noted
that none can be applied to it, because in all
th[o]se cases, the accuseds employer did not
interpose an appeal. Indeed, petitioner cannot
cite any single case in which the employer
appealed, precisely because an appeal in such
2
circumstances is not possible. The cases dealing
with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly
declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties
to the criminal cases instituted against their
employees. Although in substance and in effect,
they have an interest therein, this fact should be
viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability. While
they may assist their employees to the extent of
supplying the latters lawyers, as in the present
case, the former cannot act independently on their
own behalf, but can only defend the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An employers
appeal would violate the employees right against
double jeopardy since the judgment against the
latter could become subject to modification
without his consent.An appeal from the sentence
of the trial court implies a waiver of the
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy
and throws the whole case open to a review by the
appellate court. The latter is then called upon to
render judgment as law and justice dictate,
whether favorable or unfavorable to the,
appellant. This is the risk involved when the
accused decides to appeal a sentence of
conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the
power to reverse, affirm or modify the judgment of
the lower court and to increase or reduce the
penalty it imposed. If the present appeal is given
course, the whole case against the accused-
employee becomes open to review. It thus follows
that a penalty higher than that which has already
been imposed by the trial court may be meted out
to him. Petitioners appeal would thus violate his
right against double jeopardy, since the judgment
against him could become subject to modification
without his consent. We are not in a position to
second-guess the reason why the accused
effectively waived his right to appeal by jumping
bail. It is clear, though, that petitioner may not
appeal without violating his right against double
jeopardy.
Same; Same; Same; The provisions of the
Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liabilityArticles
102 and 103are deemed written into the
judgments in the cases to which they are
applicable.Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the
adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the
event of the latters insolvency. The provisions of the
Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liabilityArticles
102 and 103are deemed written into the
judgments in the cases to which they are
applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its
decision, the trial court need not expressly
pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.
Same; Same; Same; To allow employers to
dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case
would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a
final judgment rendered by a competent court; The
decision convicting an employee in a criminal case
is binding and conclusive upon the employer not
only with regard to the formers civil liability, but
also with regard to its amount.In the absence of
any collusion between the accused-employee and
the offended party, the judgment of conviction
should bind the person who is subsidiarily liable. In
effect and implication, the stigma of a criminal
conviction surpasses mere civil liability. To allow
employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify
or defeat a final judgment rendered by a
competent court. By the same token, to allow them
to appeal the final criminal conviction of their
employees without the latters consent would also
result in improperly amending, nullifying or
defeating the judgment. The decision convicting
an employee in a criminal case is binding and
conclusive upon the employer not only with regard
to the formers civil liability, but also with regard to
its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be
separated from that of the employee.
Same; Same; Same; There is only one criminal
case against the accused-employee, and a finding
of guilt has both criminal and civil aspectsit is the
height of absurdity for this single case to be final as
to the accused who jumped bail, but not as to an
entity whose liability is dependent upon the
conviction of the former; Where the civil liability of
the accused-employee has become final and
enforceable by reason of his flight, then his
employers subsidiary civil liability has also become
immediately enforceable.According to the
argument of petitioner, fairness dictates that while
the finality of conviction could be the proper
sanction to be imposed upon the accused for
jumping bail, the same sanction should not affect it.
In effect, petitioner-employer splits this case into
two: first,for itself; and second, for its accused-
employee. The untenability of this argument is
clearly evident. There is only one criminal case
against the accused-employee. A finding of guilt
has both criminal and civil aspects. It is the height
of absurdity for this single case to be final as to the
accused who jumped bail, but not as to an entity
whose liability is dependent upon the conviction of
the former. The subsidiary liability of petitioner is
incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil
3
liability of the accused-employee. Since the civil
liability of the latter has become final and
enforceable by reason of his flight, then the
formers subsidiary civil liability has also become
immediately enforceable. Respondent is correct in
arguing that the concept of subsidiary liability is
highly contingent on the imposition of the primary
civil liability.
Chiok vs. People
Same; Civil Procedure; Res Judicata; Facts and
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit
cannot again be raised in any future case between
the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve
a different cause of action.The doctrine of res
judicata under the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment is found in paragraph (c) of Section 47,
Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under this
doctrine, a final judgment or decree on the merits
by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of
the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits
on points and matters determined in the former suit.
Stated differently, facts and issues actually and
directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
raised in any future case between the same
parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different
cause of action. This principle of res judicata bars
the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another
litigation between the same parties on a different
claim or cause of action.
Same; Same; Same; The principle of res judicata in
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment
presupposes that facts and issues were actually
and directly resolved in a previous case.The
principle of res judicata in the concept of
conclusiveness of judgment presupposes that facts
and issues were actually and directly resolved in a
previous case. However, the records show that in
the BP 22 case, the facts and issues proving the
transaction were not actually and directly resolved
in the decision.
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
Same; Civil Procedure; Words and Phrases;
Forum Shopping; Forum shopping is defined as the
act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously
or successively, all substantially founded on the
same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved
adversely by some other court . . . to increase his
chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in
one court, then in another.Forum shopping is
defined as the act of a litigant who repetitively
availed of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and
the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues either pending
in, or already resolved adversely by some other
court . . . to increase his chances of obtaining a
favorable decision if not in one court, then in
another.
Same; Same; Requisites that Must Concur to
Establish When a Litigant Commits Forum
Shopping.The test and requisites that must concur
to establish when a litigant commits forum shopping
are the following: The test for determining the
existence of forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether
a final judgment in one case amounts to res
judicata in another. Thus, there is forum shopping
when the following elements are present: (a)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars, such that
any judgment rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount
to res judicata in the action under consideration;
said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites
for auter action pendant or lis pendens.
Same; Criminal Procedure; When the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is
instituted with the criminal action, whether by
choice of private complainant (i.e., no reservation
is made or no prior filing of a separate civil action)
or as required by the law or rules, the case will be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor.When the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with
the criminal action, whether by choice of private
complainant (i.e., no reservation is made or no prior
filing of a separate civil action) or as required by
the law or rules, the case will be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
The civil action cannot proceed independently of
the criminal case. This includes subsequent
proceedings on the criminal action such as an
appeal. In any case, Ferro Chemicals, Inc. joined
the public prosecutor in filing the petition
for certiorari before this court. Ramon Garcia,
President of Ferro Chemicals, Inc., signed the
verification and certification of nonforum shopping
of the petition for certiorari. We must clarify,
however, that private complainants in criminal
4
cases are not precluded from filing a motion for
reconsideration and subsequently an appeal on
the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the
accused. An exception to the rule that only the
Solicitor General can bring actions in criminal
proceedings before the Court of Appeals or this
court is when the private offended party questions
the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.
Same; Same; Civil Liability; Jurisprudence has
enumerated three (3) instances when,
notwithstanding the accuseds acquittal, the
offended party may still claim civil liability ex
delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required; (b) if the court declared that the liability
of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the civil liability
of the accused does not arise from or is not based
upon the crime of which the accused is
acquitted.This is in consonance with the doctrine
that: [T]he extinction of the penal action does not
necessarily carry with it the extinction of the civil
action, whether the latter is instituted with or
separately from the criminal action. The offended
party may still claim civil liability ex delicto if there is
a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the liability may
arise exists. Jurisprudence has enumerated three
instances when, notwithstanding the accuseds
acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil
liability ex delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that
the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the
civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is
not based upon the crime of which the accused is
acquitted.
Same; Same; Same; If the state pursues an
appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the
trial court acquitting the accused and private
complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute
a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto
that is inherently attached to the offense is likewise
appealed.If the state pursues an appeal on the
criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court
acquitting the accused and private complainant/s
failed to reserve the right to institute a separate civil
action, the civil liability ex delicto that is inherently
attached to the offense is likewise appealed. The
appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly
instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the
acquittal of the accused. Private complainant
cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from
that of the state without violating the doctrine of
nonforum shopping.
 Same; Same; Same; The conclusion is different
if private complainant reserved the right to institute
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex
delicto before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or
institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of
the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing of an
appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be
considered as forum shopping.The conclusion is
different if private complainant reserved the right to
institute the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability ex delicto before the Regional Trial Court or
institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of
the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing of an
appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be
considered as forum shopping. This is not the
situation here.
Maccay vs. Nobela
Actions; Criminal Law; Criminal
Procedure; Counterclaims; A court trying a criminal
case cannot award damages in favor of the
accusedits task is limited to determining the guilt
of the accused and if proper, to determine his civil
liability.A court trying a criminal case cannot
award damages in favor of the accused. The task
of the trial court is limited to determining the guilt of
the accused and if proper, to determine his civil
liability. A criminal case is not the proper
proceedings to determine the private
complainants civil liability, if any. The trial court
erred in ordering complainant petitioner Maccay
and prosecution witness Potenciano, as part of the
judgment in the criminal case, to reimburse the
P300,000 and pay damages to the accused
respondent spouses. This Court ruled in Cabaero v.
Hon. Cantos that a court trying a criminal case
should limit itself to the criminal and civil liability of
the accused, thus: [Thus,] the trial court should
confine itself to the criminal aspect and the
possible civil liability of the accused arising out of
the crime. The counterclaim (and cross-claim or
third-party complaint, if any) should be set aside or
refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing
in separate proceedings at the proper time.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure prohibit counterclaims in
criminal cases.The appellate court erred in
affirming the trial courts award of damages by
justifying it as a counterclaim. Nothing in the
records shows that respondent spouses filed or
attempted to file a counterclaim. The 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure prohibit counterclaims in
5
criminal cases. Section 1 of Rule 111 provides:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
(a) x x x 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 been the subject thereof may be litigated in
a separate civil action. This paragraph addresses
the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero on the
absence of clear-cut rules governing the
prosecution of impliedly instituted civil action and
the necessary consequences and implications
thereof. In the present case, the civil liability of
petitioners for swindling respondent spouses and for
maliciously filing a baseless suit must be litigated in
a separate proceeding.
Nuguid vs. Nicdao
Criminal Law; From the standpoint of its effects,
a crime has a dual character(1) as an offense
against the State because of the disturbance of
the social order, and, (2) as an offense against the
private person injured by the crime unless it involves
the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
contempt and others (wherein no civil liability arises
on the part of the offender either because there
are no damages to be compensated or there is no
private person injured by the crime).From the
standpoint of its effects, a crime has a dual
character: (1) as an offense against the State
because of the disturbance of the social order and
(2) as an offense against the private person injured
by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason,
rebellion, espionage, contempt and others
(wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the
offender either because there are no damages to
be compensated or there is no private person
injured by the crime). What gives rise to the civil
liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair
or to make whole the damage caused to another
by reason of his act or omission, whether done
intentionally or negligently and whether or not
punishable by law. Extinction of penal action does
not carry with it the eradication of civil liability,
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in
the final judgment that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist.
Same; A person acquitted of a criminal charge is
not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of
proof required in criminal prosecution is greater
than that required for civil liabilityin order to be
completely free from civil liability, a persons
acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not
commit the offense, and if the acquittal is based
merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still
be held civilly liable since this does not mean that
he did not commit the act complained of.The
basic principle in civil liability ex delicto is that every
person criminally liable is also civilly liable, crime
being one of the five sources of obligations under
the Civil Code. A person acquitted of a criminal
charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free
because the quantum of proof required in criminal
prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is
greater than that required for civil liability (mere
preponderance of evidence). In order to be
completely free from civil liability, a persons
acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not
commit the offense. If the acquittal is based merely
on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held
civilly liable since this does not mean he did not
commit the act complained of. It may only be that
the facts proved did not constitute the offense
charged. Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the
following cases: (1) where the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required in civil cases; (2) where the
court declared the accuseds liability is not criminal
but only civil in nature and (3) where the civil
liability does not arise from or is not based upon the
criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; Actions; Consolidation is a matter
of discretion with the court; It becomes a matter of
right only when the cases sought to be
consolidated involve similar questions of fact and
law provided certain requirements are met.
Consolidation is a matter of discretion with the
court. Consolidation becomes a matter of right only
when the cases sought to be consolidated involve
similar questions of fact and law, provided certain
requirements are met. The purpose of consolidation
is to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear
congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial
court, and save unnecessary expense. We cannot
order the consolidation of the civil case for
collection with the criminal cases for two reasons.
First, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
collection case. Second, the Rules of Court do not
allow the filing of a counterclaim or a third-party
complaint in a criminal case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An essential
requisite of consolidation is that the court must
have jurisdiction over all the cases consolidated
before it.An essential requisite of consolidation is
that the court must have jurisdiction over all the
cases consolidated before it. Since the
Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the
6
collection case, the same cannot be consolidated
with the criminal cases even if these cases involve
similar questions of fact and law. Obviously,
consolidation of the collection case with the
criminal cases will be a useless and empty formality
since the Sandiganbayan, being devoid of
jurisdiction over the collection case, cannot act on
it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A counterclaim
in a criminal case must be litigated separately to
avoid complication and confusion in the resolution
of the criminal cases.A counterclaim in a criminal
case must be litigated separately to avoid
complication and confusion in the resolution of the
criminal cases. This is the rationale behind Section 1
of Rule 111. The same rationale applies to NICs
collection case against petitioner and DPWH. Thus,
NICs collection case must be litigated separately
before the Malabon trial court to avoid confusion in
resolving the criminal cases with the
Sandiganbayan.
Under Section 3 of Rule 111, civil actions
falling under Articles 32, 33, 34 or 2176 may
proceed independently and separately from the
criminal case. However, NIC cannot invoke any of
these articles.
Article 31 speaks of a civil action based on
an obligation not arising from the act x x x
complained of as a felony. This clearly means that
the obligation must arise from an act not
constituting a crime. In the instant case, the act
purporting to create the obligation is assailed as a
crime in itself.
Clearly, NICs civil case before the Malabon trial
court does not fall under Article 31 of the Civil
Code. This calls then for the application of the
second paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 111 which
states that if the criminal action is filed after the
said civil action has already been instituted, the
latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may
be found before judgment on the merits.
Consequently, the civil case for collection pending
in the Malabon trial court must be suspended until
after the termination of the criminal cases filed with
the Sandiganbayan.
The suspension of the civil case for collection
of sum of money will avoid the possibility of
conflicting decisions between the Sandiganbayan
and the Malabon trial court on the validity of NICs
dredging contracts. If the Sandiganbayan declares
the dredging contracts illegal and void ab
initio, and such declaration becomes final, then
NICs civil case for collection of sum of money will
have no legal leg to stand on. However, if the
Sandiganbayan finds the dredging contracts valid,
then NICs collection case before the Malabon trial
court can then proceed to trial.
Naguiat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Same; Consolidation of Cases; Rule 111, Sec. 3(a)
of the Rules of Court requires that the civil action to
be consolidated with the criminal action is one for
recovery of civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, or ex delicto.As a ground for the
consolidation of the criminal civil cases, petitioner
invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3(a), Rules of Court, which
provides:Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from
offenses.Whenever the offended party shall have
instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability
arising from the offense, as contemplated in the first
paragaph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules
shall be observed: (a) After a criminal action has
been commenced, the pending civil action arising
from the same offense shall be suspended, in
whatever stage it may be found until final
judgment in the criminal proceeding has been
rendered. However, if no final judgment has been
rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the
same may be consolidated with the criminal action
upon application with the court trying the criminal
action. If the application is granted, the evidence
presented and admitted in the civil action shall be
deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal
action, without prejudice to the admission of
additional evidence that any party may wish to
present. x x x x. Under the aforequoted provision,
the civil action that may be consolidated with a
criminal action, is one for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the criminal offense, or ex
delicto. In the case at bar, the civil action filed by
the petitioner was for specific performance with
damages. The main relief sought in the latter case,
i.e., the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots
which petitioner had allegedly fully paid for, was
grounded on the Contract to Sell between the
petitioner and the private respondent. Hence the
civil action filed by the petitioner was for the
enforcement of obligation arising from a contract,
or ex contractu, and not one for the recovery of
civil liability arising from an offense; hence, the law
invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable.
Same; Same; Same; Consolidation of a criminal
action with a civil action arising not ex delicto, may
still be done under Sec. 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of
Court.But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the
consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action
arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based
upon the express authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of
7
the Rules of Court, which provides: Section 1.
Conso-lidation.When actions involving a
common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial
of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may
make such orders concerning proceedings therein
as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Santos vs. Pizarro
Same; Same; Same; Quasi
Delict; Negligence; In case of negligence, the
offended party has the choice between an action
to enforce civil liability arising from crime under the
Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi delict
under the Civil Code; An act or omission causing
damage to another may give rise to two separate
civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1)
civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil
liabilities.A reading of the complaint reveals that
the allegations therein are consistent with
petitioners claim that the action was brought to
recover civil liability arising from crime. Although
there are allegations of negligence on the part of
Sibayan and Viron Transit, such does not necessarily
mean that petitioners were pursuing a cause of
action based on quasi delict, considering that at
the time of the filing of the complaint, the cause of
action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed.
Besides, in cases of negligence, the offended party
has the choice between an action to enforce civil
liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal
Code and an action for quasi delict under the Civil
Code. An act or omission causing damage to
another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities
on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex
delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code; and (2) 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; or (b) where 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 plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant and the similar proscription against
double recovery under the Rules above-quoted.
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Prescription; The
prescription of action ex quasi delicto does not
operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from the crime.At the time of the
filing of the complaint for damages in this case, the
cause of action ex quasi delicto had already
prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the
remaining avenue opened for them by their
reservation, i.e., the surviving cause of action ex
delicto. This is so because the prescription of the
action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar
to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from
crime especially as the latter action had been
expressly reserved.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The rationale of the
rule that reservation or institution of a separate civil
action waives the other civil actions is the
avoidance of multiple suits between the same
litigants arising out of the same act or omission of
the offender. Where the stale action for damages
based on quasi delicts is considered waived, there
is no more occasion for the offended party to file
multiple suits as the only recourse available to him is
to pursue damages ex delicto
Ace Haulers Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Actions; Damages; Quasi-
Delicts; Torts; Negligence; In negligence cases, the
offended party (or his heirs) has the option
between an action for enforcement of civil liability
based on culpa criminal under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code and an action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article
2176 of the Civil Code.In Padua v. Robles, we
held that Civil liability coexists with criminal
responsibility. In negligence cases, the offended
party (or his heirs) has the option between an
action for enforcement of civil liability based on
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code and an action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article
2176 of the Civil Code, x x x Article 2177 of the Civil
Code, however, precludes recovery of damages
twice for the same negligent act or omission.
Consequently, a separate civil action for damages
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 the
bigger award of the two, assuming the awards
made in the two cases vary.
8
Madeja vs. Caro
Civil Law; Damages; Article 33 of the Civil
Code; Civil action allowed to be instituted is ex-
delicto.The civil action for damages which it
allows to be instituted is ex delicto, This is manifest
from the provision which uses the expressions
''criminal action" and "criminal prosecution."
Same; Same; Same; Physical injuries, scope
of.The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic
sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined
in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only
physical injuries but consummated, frustrated and
attempted homicide.
Same; Same; Same; Civil action for damages
may proceed independently of the criminal action
for homicide through reckless imprudence.ln the
light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the civil
action against Dr. Japzon may proceed
independently of the criminal action against her.
Manliclic vs. Calaunan
Quasi-Delicts; Extinction of Civil Liability; The
extinction of civil liability referred to Section 2(b) of
Rule 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
quasidelict 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.From the foregoing declaration of the
Court of Appeals, it appears that petitioner
Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt,
but on the ground that he is not the author of the
act complained of which is based on Section 2(b)
of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which
reads: (b) Extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. In spite of said ruling, petitioner
Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. The
afore-quoted section applies only to a civil action
arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a civil
action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of
Section 3, Rule 111 [now Section 2 (b) of Rule 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 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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 a delict or crimea distinction exists between
the civil liability arising from a crime and the
responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa
extracontractual; It is now settled that acquittal of
the accused, even if based on a finding that he is
not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the
civil liability based on quasi-delict.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 a delict or crimea distinction
exists between the civil liability arising from a crime
and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa
extra-contractual. The same negligence causing
damages may produce civil liability arising from a
crime under the Penal Code, or create an action
for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under
the Civil Code. It is now settled that acquittal of the
accused, even if based on a finding that he is not
guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the
civil liability based on quasi delict. In other words, if
an accused is acquitted based on reasonable
doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising from the
crime may be proved by preponderance of
evidence only. However, if an accused is acquitted
on the basis that he was not the author of the act
or omission complained of (or that there is
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist), said
acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on
the crime or ex delicto. In this second instance,
there being no crime or delict to speak of, civil
liability based thereon or ex delicto is not possible.
In this case, a civil action, if any, may be instituted
on grounds other than the delict complained of.
Bernardo vs. People
Same; Same; As a general rule, the death of an
accused pending appeal extinguishes her criminal
liability and the corresponding civil liability based
solely on the offense (delict).As a general rule,
the death of an accused pending
appeal extinguishes her criminal liability and the
corresponding civil liability based solely on the
offense (delict). The death amounts to an acquittal
of the accused based
the constitutionally mandated presumption of
innocence in her favor, which can be overcome
9
only by a finding of guilt something that death
prevents the court from making. In a sense, death
absolves the accused from any earthly
responsibility arising from the offense a divine act
that no human court can reverse, qualify, much less
disregard. The intervention of death of the accused
in any case is an injunction by fate itself so that no
criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability
arising from the offense should be imposed on him.
Same; Same; Independent Civil Liability; The
independent civil liabilities survive death and an
action for recovery therefore may
be generally pursued but only by filing a separate
civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.The
independent civil liabilities, however, survive death
and an action for recovery therefore may
be generally pursued but only by filing a separate
civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This
separate civil action may be enforced against the
estate of the accused.
Same; Same; Bouncing Checks Law; In Batas
Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 cases, the criminal action
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
actions. Instead of instituting two (2) separate
cases, only a single suit is filed and tried. This rule
was enacted to help declog court dockets, which
had been packed with BP Blg. 22 because creditors
used the courts as collectors.In B.P. 22 cases, the
criminal action shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil actions. Instead of instituting
two separate cases, only a single suit is filed and
tried. This rule was enacted to help declog court
dockets, which had been packed with B.P. 22
because creditors used the courts as collectors.
People vs. Consing, Jr.
Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial
Question; Definition.A prejudicial question is
defined as that which arises in a case, the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial
question must be determinative of the case before
the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the
question must be lodged in another court or
tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Requisites.For a civil action to
be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to
cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings
until the final resolution of the civil action, the
following requisites must be present: (1) the civil
case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2)
in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused
would necessarily be determined; and (3)
jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in
another tribunal.
Same; Independent Civil Action; Neither is
there a prejudicial question if the civil and criminal
action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.Neither is there a
prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal
action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other. Under Rule 111,
Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent
civil action may be brought by the offended party.
It shall proceed independently of the criminal
action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended
party recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action.
San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Perez
Remedial Law; Prejudicial Questions; Words
and Phrases; A prejudicial question is understood in
law to be that which arises in a case the resolution
of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance
of which pertains to another tribunal.BF Homes
posture that the administrative case for specific
performance in the HLURB posed a prejudicial
question that must first be determined before the
criminal case for violation of Section 25 of
Presidential Decree No. 957 could be resolved is
correct. A prejudicial question is understood in law
to be that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
in the criminal case, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of
the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and
resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is
based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but is so intimately connected with the crime
that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused. The rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting decisions.
The essential elements of a prejudicial question are
provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court, to wit: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
10
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
Same; Same; The determination of whether the
proceedings ought to be suspended because of a
prejudicial question rested on whether the facts
and issues raised in the pleadings in the specific
performance case were so related with the issues
raised in the criminal complaint for the violation of
Presidential Decree No. 957, such that the resolution
of the issues in the former would be determinative
of the question of guilt in the criminal case.The
determination of whether the proceedings ought to
be suspended because of a prejudicial question
rested on whether the facts and issues raised in the
pleadings in the specific performance case were so
related with the issues raised in the criminal
complaint for the violation of Presidential Decree
No. 957, such that the resolution of the issues in the
former would be determinative of the question of
guilt in the criminal case. An examination of the
nature of the two cases involved is thus necessary.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial
Questions; A party who raises a prejudicial question
is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all
the essential elements of the crime have been
adequately alleged in the information, considering
that the Prosecution has not yet presented a single
piece of evidence on the indictment or may not
have rested its case.Worthy to note at this
juncture is that a prejudicial question need not
conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the
accused. It is enough for the prejudicial question to
simply test the sufficiency of the allegations in the
information in order to sustain the further
prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises
a prejudicial question is deemed to have
hypothetically admitted that all the essential
elements of the crime have been adequately
alleged in the information, considering that the
Prosecution has not yet presented a single piece of
evidence on the indictment or may not have
rested its case. A challenge to the allegations in the
information on the ground of prejudicial question is
in effect a question on the merits of the criminal
charge through a non-criminal suit.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial
Questions; The procedural law must always be
given a reasonable construction to preclude
absurdity in its application. Hence, a literal
application of the principle governing prejudicial
questions is to be eschewed if such application
would produce unjust and absurd results or
unreasonable consequences.It is not tenable for
San Miguel Properties to argue that the character
of a violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree
No. 957 as malum prohibitum, by which criminal
liability attached to BF Homes directors and
officers by the mere failure to deliver the TCTs,
already rendered the suspension unsustainable. The
mere fact that an act or omission was malum
prohibitum did not do away with the initiative
inherent in every court to avoid an absurd result by
means of rendering a reasonable interpretation
and application of the procedural law. Indeed, the
procedural law must always be given a reasonable
construction to preclude absurdity in its application.
Hence, a literal application of the principle
governing prejudicial questions is to be eschewed if
such application would produce unjust and absurd
results or unreasonable consequences.
Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. vs. Lichauco
Prejudicial Questions; The rationale for the
principle of prejudicial question is that although it
does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence
of the accused, it tests the sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint or information in order
to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal
case.The rationale for the principle of prejudicial
question is that although it does not conclusively
resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused, it
tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the
complaint or information in order to sustain the
further prosecution of the criminal case. Hence, the
need for its prior resolution before further
proceedings in the criminal action may be had.
Same; If the award to the undisclosed bidder
is, in the civil case, declared valid for being within
the respondent officials scope of authority to thus
free her from liability for damages, there would be
no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be
basis for undue injury claimed to have been
suffered by the complainant.The civil case
against Lichauco on the other hand involves three
causes of action. The first, for injunction, seeks to
enjoin the award of orbital slot 153 E, the DOTC
having previously assigned the same to PASI; the
second, for declaration of nullity of award, seeks to
nullify the award given to the undisclosed bidder
for being beyond Lichaucos authority; and the
third, for damages arising from Lichaucos
questioned acts. If the award to the undisclosed
bidder of orbital slot 153 E is, in the civil case,
declared valid for being within Lichaucos scope of
authority to thus free her from liability for damages,
there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor
would there be basis for undue injury claimed to
11
have been suffered by petitioner. The finding by
the Ombudsman of the existence of a prejudicial
question is thus well-taken.
Prejudicial Questions; When, in the course of
the actions taken by those to whom the complaint
is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial question is
found to be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court should be applied in a suppletory
character, which rule directs that the proceedings
may only be suspended, not dismissed, and that it
may be made only upon petition, and not at the
instance of the judge alone or the investigating
officer.When, in the course of the actions taken
by those to whom the complaint is endorsed or
forwarded, a prejudicial question is found to be
pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
should be applied in a suppletory character. As laid
down in Yap v. Paras, 205 SCRA 625 (1992), said rule
directs that the proceedings may only
be suspended, not dismissed, and that it may be
made only upon petition, and not at the instance
of the judge alone or as in this case, the
investigating officer. To give imprimatur to the
Ombudsmans dismissal of petitioners criminal
complaint due to prejudicial question would not
only run counter to the provision of Section 6 of Rule
111 of the Rules of Court. It would sanction the
extinguishment of criminal liability, if there be any,
through prescription under Article 89 vis--
vis Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
Montaez vs. Cipriano
Same; Same; The subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not
change the fact that she contracted the second
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage.At the time respondent contracted the
second marriage, the first marriage was still
subsisting as it had not yet been legally dissolved.
As ruled in the above-mentioned jurisprudence, the
subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first
marriage would not change the fact that she
contracted the second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. Thus, respondent
was properly charged of the crime of bigamy,
since the essential elements of the offense charged
were sufficiently alleged.
Ark Travel Express, Inc. vs. Abrogar
Criminal Procedure; Trial court has the
bounden duty to make an independent
assessment of the merits of the motion when
confronted with a motion to withdraw an
Information on the ground of lack of probable respondents in the civil case, the criminal action for
cause based on a resolution of the Secretary of false testimony must perforce be suspended.
Justice.It is settled that when confronted with a Pending determination of the falsity of the subject
motion to withdraw an Information on the ground testimonies of private respondents in the civil case,
of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the criminal action for false testimony must perforce
the Secretary of the Department of Justice, the be suspended. As such, under the attendant
bounden duty of the trial court is to make an circumstances, although there is no motion to
independent assessment of the merits of such suspend proceedings on the part of the private
motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, respondents, orderly administration of justice
the trial court is not bound by such resolution but is dictates that the criminal cases should be
required to evaluate it before proceeding further suspended.
with the trial and should embody such assessment
in the order disposing the motion.
Same; False Testimony in Civil Case; Requisites
of the crime of false testimony in a civil case.To
constitute the crime of False Testimony in a Civil
Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code,
the following requisites must concur: 1. the
testimony must be given in a civil case; 2. the
testimony must relate to the issues presented in the
case; 3. the testimony is false; 4. the false testimony
must be given by the defendant knowing the same
to be false; and 5. such testimony must be
malicious and given with and intent to affect the
issues presented in the case.
Same; Same; Prejudicial Question; Whether or
not the testimonies of private respondents in the
civil cases are false is a prejudicial question;
Elements of a prejudicial question.The falsity of
the subject testimonies of private respondents is yet
to be established. It is noted that at the time of the
filing of the criminal complaints, the civil case filed
by Ark Travel is still pending decision. Ark Travel has
yet to prove the validity of its monetary claims and
damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial that the
RTC can assess the veracity or falsity of the
testimony and correspondingly render a decision.
Thus, the civil case is so intimately connected with
the subject crime that it is determinative of the guilt
or innocence of the respondents in the criminal
cases. In other words, whether or not the
testimonies of private respondents in the civil cases
are false is a prejudicial question. It is clear that the
elements of a prejudicial question are present as
provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, to wit: SEC. 7. Elements of
prejudicial question.The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
Same; Same; Same; Pending determination of
the falsity of the subject testimonies of private
12