Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action) requiring automatic conviction for a capital offense upon a

valid guilty plea.

 Article 100 RPC
Are there cases where the offended party cannot
 Every person criminally liable is also civilly
reserve his right to institute a separate civil action?
liable
Yes. These are criminal actions for:
General Rule:
a) violation of BP 22= the liability is
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
essentially civil.
action for the recovery of civil liability arising
b) those that fall within the jurisdiction of
from the offense shall be deemed instituted with
the Sandiganbayan= in cases falling within the
the criminal action.
jurisdiction of the Sandigandbayan, the
Exceptions: PWR
offended party is the State.
• When the offended party reserves the right
In criminal actions for violation of BP 22,
to institute a separate action
may the offended party still waive the civil
WHEN TO INSTITUTE?
liability arising from the offense or institute
o At anytime before the prosecution starts
a prior civil action to recover it?
presenting its evidence but always
Yes. Only reservation of the right to file a separate
under such circumstances that afford
civil action is prohibited by the rules.
the offended party a reasonable
Case:
opportunity to make such reasonable
A killed her spouse, B. A was subsequently charged
opportunity to make such reservation
with parricide for which she was found guilty. A and B had
(Rule 111 Section 1).
common children who are still minors. Prior to the
*This rule is added to address a situation
presentation of evidence by the prosecution, B’s heirs never
where the accused pleads guilty to a non-
made any reservation to file a separate civil action to enforce
capital offense in order to escape civil
the civil liability arising from the offense. Considering that
liability (as shown by some cases that have
the children are still minor, the judge ordered a reservation
reached the Supreme Court). In such
of their right to institute a separate action until a guardian
instance, no trial shall be made and the
for them has been appointed. Nonetheless, despite its prior
prosecution cannot present its evidence.
order, the trial court awarded damages in favor of A and B’s
Nonetheless, a reasonable opportunity s hall
common children. A assailed the award on the ground that
be given for the offended party to make the
the right to institute a separate civil action has been reserved.
reservation of his right to file a separate
Is A correct?
action. In other words, pleading guilty to a
No, A is incorrect. The reservation to institute a
non-capital offense in order to escape civil
separate action is personal. It may only be done by the
liability arising from the offense is not
offended party. Not even the court can make such
allowed.
reservation on behalf of the offended party. (People v.
Samson, 7 SCRA 478)
• When the offended party waives the civil
What is an independent civil action? (Rule 111
action
Sec. 3, Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code)
• When the offended party institutes civil
They are civil actions that may proceed
action prior to the institution of a criminal
independently of the criminal action. They are totally
action
distinct and separate from the civil liability arising from the
Case: A makes a valid plea of guilty for the crime
criminal action. They are characterized by the separability
of Homicide. The prosecution no longer presents evidence
of their juridical cause/cause of action. As a consequence,
to prove A’s guilt. B, the offended party, chooses to reserve
the right to bring these actions need not be reserved, and the
the right to institute a separate civil action. A objected on the
institution of a prior civil action or waiver of the civil
ground that he may not do so because there will be no
liability does not extinguish the right to file an independent
presentation of evidence by the prosecution. Will A’s
civil action.
contention prosper?
What are the different independent civil actions?
A: No, A is incorrect. B must be afforded reasonable
The different independent civil actions are those mentioned
opportunity to reserve his right to institute a separate civil
in Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
action. (Menses v. Luat 12 SCRA 454: Reyes v. Simpio 141
A) Civil actions arising from Art. 32 of the
SCRA 208)
Civil Code - Violation of Political and
What if the accused pleads guilty to a capital
Civil Liberties.
offense?
B) Civil actions arising from Art. 33 of the
The prosecution still needs to prove the guilt of the
Civil Code - Defamation, Fraud
accused along with his civil liability. There is no rule
(including estafa as fraud is used in its
 generic sense) and Physical Injuries
(still in generic sense- includes all
offenses resulting to physical injuries)
c) Civil actions arising from Art. 34 of the
Civil Code – Failure to render aid by a
Peace Officer (principally), city or
municipality (subsidiarily)
d) Civil Actions arising from Art. 2176 of
the Civil Code – Quasi-delicts
What is needed to make a valid waiver?
A waiver of the civil liability arising from the
offense charged needs a positive action and must also be
personal.
Institution of a Prior Civil Action:
General Rule:
Criminal action takes precedence over civil actions.
This means that all earlier instituted civil actions will have
to be suspended to await judgment in the criminal actions.
Exceptions:
1) Independent civil actions;
2) Civil Actions that involve prejudicial questions;
3) Consolidation of the prior instituted civil action
with the criminal action;
4) Civil Actions that do not enforce liability arising
from the offense charged.
Independent Civil Actions:
Independent civil actions and civil actions that do
not enforce liability arising from the offense charged shall
proceed unaffected by the criminal action.
Civil Actions that involve prejudicial questions:
The existence of a prejudicial question in an earlier
instituted civil action will suspend the criminal action. In
this case, it is the civil action that truly takes precedence over
the criminal action.
Consolidation of the prior instituted civil action
with the criminal action:
If there is a consolidation of the prior instituted civil
action with the criminal action, there shall be a joint trial on
the civil and criminal aspects of the criminal case.
Civil Actions that do not enforce liability arising
from the offense charged:
Independent civil actions and civil actions that do
not enforce liability arising from the offense charged shall
proceed unaffected by the criminal action.
If a civil action has been instituted prior to the
criminal action, what happens now to the civil aspect of
the criminal action?
The criminal action no longer has a civil aspect. It
becomes a purely criminal case.
What happens to the prior instituted civil action
upon the commencement of the criminal action?
It shall be suspended in whatever stage it
may be found until judgment on the merits or to await final
judgment to be rendered in the criminal action (Rule 111,
Sec.2)
What happens if there is consolidation?
Upon a motion for consolidation, there shall be a joint trial
for the civil and criminal action for a joint judgment. The
civil action shall be consolidated in the same criminal action.
It may happen that the civil action is in a different court.
Upon consolidation, the civil action shall be transferred to
where the criminal action is.
Is a consolidation of the prior instituted civil action
and the criminal action mandatory?
No. It is not a ministerial duty of the court trying the
criminal action to grant application for consolidation of an
earlier instituted civil action.
Rule on failure to consolidate:
Is the earlier instituted civil action deemed
abandoned for failure to consolidate it with the criminal
action?
Yes, IF the civil action is one to recover civil
liability arising from a criminal action committed by
government officials in relation to their office.
NOTE:
For all other cases, there is no abandonment of the
civil action by reason of failure to consolidate it with the
criminal action.
Prejudicial Question:
What is a prejudicial question?
A prejudicial question is an issue involved
in a previously filed civil case which is similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action, the resolution of which determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
What are the elements of a prejudicial question?
The following are the elements of a prejudicial
question:
1) The previously instituted civil action involves
an issue similar to or intimately related to the issue raised in
the subsequent criminal action.
2) The resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (Rule 111
Sec. 5)
In what cases does a prejudicial question apply?
A prejudicial question applies only to a criminal
action and not to civil or administrative cases. For it to apply,
it is a strict requisite that there must be a prior instituted civil
action and a criminal action filed thereafter.
TAKE NOTE:
RICARDO QUIAMBAO vs. HON. ADRIANO
OSORIO, ZENAIDA GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA
GAZA BERNARDO, and FELIPE GAZA, LAND
AUTHORITY, G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988
The actions involved in the case at bar being
respectively civil and administrative in character, it is
obvious that technically, there is no prejudicial question to
speak of. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate
correlation between said two [2] proceedings, stemming
from the fact that the right of private respondents to eject
petitioner from the disputed portion depends primarily on
the resolution of the pending administrative case. For while
it may be true that private respondents had prior possession
of the lot in question, at the time of the institution of the
ejectment case, such right of possession had been
terminated, or at the very least, suspended by the
cancellation by the Land Authority of the Agreement to Sell
executed in their favor. Whether or not private respondents
can continue to exercise their right of possession is but a
necessary, logical consequence of the issue involved in the
pending administrative case assailing the validity of the
cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent
award of the disputed portion to petitioner. If the
cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent
award to petitioner are voided, then private respondents
would have every right to eject petitioner from the disputed
area. Otherwise, private respondent's right of possession is
lost and so would their right to eject petitioner from said
portion.
Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more
prudent course for the trial court to have taken is to hold the
ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a
determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic and
pragmatism, if not jurisprudence, dictate such move. To
allow the parties to undergo trial notwithstanding the
possibility of petitioner's right of possession being upheld in
the pending administrative case is to needlessly require not
only the parties but the court as well to expend time, effort
and money in what may turn out to be a sheer exercise in
futility.
While this rule is properly applicable to instances
involving two [2] court actions, the existence in the instant
case of the same considerations of Identity of parties and
issues, economy of time and effort for the court, the counsels
and the parties as well as the need to resolve the parties' right
of possession before the ejectment case may be properly
determined, justifies the rule's analogous application to the
case at bar.
Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Celdran, et al., 19 SCRA
502, provides another analogous situation. In sustaining the
assailed order of the then Court of First Instance of Misamis
Oriental ordering the suspension of the criminal case for
falsification of public document against several persons,
among them the subscribing officer Santiago Catane until
the civil case involving the issue of the genuineness of the
alleged forged document shall have been decided, this Court
cited as a reason therefor its own action on the
administrative charges against said Santiago Catane, as
follows:
"As it appears that the genuineness of the document
allegedly forged by respondent attorneys in Administrative
Case No. 77 [Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane,
etc., et al.] is necessarily involved in Civil Case No. R-3397
of the Cebu Court of First Instance, action on the herein
complaint is withheld until that litigation has finally been
decided. Complainant Celdran shall inform the Court about
such decision."
If a pending civil case may be considered to be in
the nature of a prejudicial question to an administrative case,
we see no reason why the reverse may not be so considered
in the proper case, such as in the petition at bar. Finally,
events occuring during the pendency of this petition attest to
the wisdom of the conclusion herein reached. For in the
Manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner, it was stated
that the intervenor Land Authority which later became the
Department of Agrarian Reform had promulgated a decision
in the administrative case, L.A. Case No. 968 affirming the
cancellation of Agreement to Sell No. 3482 issued in favor
of private respondents. With this development, the folly of
allowing the ejectment case to proceed is too evident to need
further elaboration.
x x x.”
Note:
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, The Revised Guideline
for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases that took effect
on September 1, 2017:
Among the prohibited pleadings under this
guideline is:
Motion to suspend the criminal action on the ground
of prejudicial question, when no civil case has been filed,
pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
Note further that under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, a
prohibited motion shall be DENIED OUTRIGHT before the
scheduled arraignment without the need of comment and/or
opposition.
What is the effect of a prejudicial question?
(Rule 111 Sec. 6)
When a prejudicial question exists in an earlier
instituted civil action, the criminal action shall be suspended
until judgment in the civil action.
What must be done in order to suspend the
proceedings in a criminal case due to a prejudicial
question? (Rule 111 Sec. 6)
The accused must file a motion to suspend
before preliminary investigation and if the criminal action is
on trial, the motion to suspend must be filed anytime before
the prosecution rests. The court or the investigating
prosecutor cannot suspend the proceedings of criminal
action or the preliminary investigation on their
own.
What kind of issue is needed for prejudicial
question? (Rule 111 Sec. 5)
For prejudicial question to exist, the issues involved
in a prior instituted civil action and the criminal action must
be so intimately related as to determine whether the criminal
action may proceed or whether the accused is guilty or not.
Case:
A and B are husband and wife, respectively. B filed
a case for concubinage against A. Thereafter, A filed a
petition to declare his marriage with B as void ab initio. B
now files a motion to suspend the proceedings of the
criminal action on the grounds of the existence of a
prejudicial question. Is there a prejudicial question in this obligation aside from the delict may proceed against the
case? estate, legal representative or heirs of the accused.
None. There is no prejudicial question. Foremost, • After Conviction but During the Pendency of an
for prejudicial question to exist, there must be a prior Appeal
instituted civil action and a criminal case filed thereafter. In The criminal liability is extinguished.
this case, it is the reverse. The civil case is filed after the The civil action based on the delict is also extinguished
commencement of the criminal action. • Note: if the civil action is not based on delict, it is
What if in the above case, the petition for not extinguished.
declaration of nullity of marriage was filed earlier prior
to the institution of the criminal action for concubinage.
Will there be a prejudicial question?
There is still no prejudicial question even if the civil
case has been filed earlier. The outcome of a civil case for
annulment of marriage or declaration of a marriage as void
ab initio does not determine the guilt of the accused in
concubinage.
Suppose the petition for declaration of nullity
was filed prior to the institution of a criminal case for
bigamy. Will there be a prejudicial question?
There is still no prejudicial question. As a rule, the
validity of either the first and second marriage is not a
prejudicial question in the case of bigamy. But if the validity
of the second marriage is in question due to vitiation of or
absence of consent, such as when the accused was made to
contract the second marriage against his will by force, threat,
or duress, it now becomes a prejudicial question. (Merced v.
Diez GR No. L-15315, August 26, 1960; Zapanta v.
Mendoza GR No. L-14534, February 28, 1962)
General Rule: Dismissal of the criminal action does
not bar the civil action/The extinction of the criminal action
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action unless
(exception clause) the civil action is based on the delict and
there is a finding in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist. Such finding may not be exactly worded as such, but
it could be impliedly stated. (Rule 111 Sec. 2)
When is the dismissal of the criminal action not
a bar to the Civil Action?
Dismissal of the criminal action is still not a bar to
the Civil Action in the following cases:
1) Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
2) Finding by the court that the accused’s liability is
civil
3) If the civil liability is not based on the crime that
is the subject matter of the criminal action.
• What is the effect of Death of the Accused?
Before Arraignment:
The criminal action must be dismissed but the
offended party may file the proper civil action against the
estate of the deceased.
• After Arraignment and During the Pendency of
the Criminal Action.
The criminal liability and its corresponding civil
liability are extinguished. However, the civil liability arising
from independent civil actions and other sources of