ELCANO vs HILL

Facts of the Case:

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal complaint was instituted against him but he
was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs
filed a complaint for recovery of damages against defendantReginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his father,
the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting subsistence, for the same killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by
the defendants. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was finally dismissed upon
motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case.

2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be appliedagainst Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact
that at the time of the occurrence complained of. Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father, was
already legally married.

Ruling of the Court:

1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as
regards the proof required in a criminal case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages.
Furthermore, a civil case for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal act. As such the
acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the
instant action against him.

2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although parental authority is terminated upon
emancipation of the child, emancipation by marriage is not absolute, i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his
father, mother or guardian. As in the present case, killing someone else contemplated judicial litigation, thus, making Article
2180 apply to Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has
become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.