PEOPLE vs.

LIGON

152 SCRA 419

July 29, 1987

Facts:

Accused-appellant, Fernando Gabat was convicted of the crime of Robbery with

homicide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Gabat allegedly robbed Jose
“Rosales” Ortiz, a 17 year old working student, who was a cigarette vendor.
According to Prudencio Castillo, a taxi driver, who allegedly saw the incident that
transpired on the night Ortiz died. According to Castillo, he was at a distance of
about 3 meters travelling on the same lane and was behind the Kombi driven by
Rogelio Ligon together with Gabat.

Castillo, in his testimony, said that Gabat grabbed the box of cigarettes from
Rosales. That while waiting for the traffic light to change from red to green,
Castillo idly watched the Volkswagon Kombi and saw Gabat signal to Ortiz. While
Ortiz was handling the cigarettes to Gabat, the traffic light changed to green and
as the Kombi moved forward, Gabat grabbed the box from Ortiz. Ortiz ran beside
the Jombi and was able to hold on to the windowsill with his right hand.
Howeverm as the Kombi continued to speed towards the C.M. Rector underpass,
Gabat forcibly remove the hand of Rosales from the said windowsill and as a
result fell face down on the ground.

On the other hand, according to Gabat, after Ortiz handed the two sticks
cigarettes Gabat in turn paid him a 5 peso bill. In order to change the said bill,
Ortiz placed his box between the arm of Gabat and the window frame. When the
traffic light changed to green, Ligon moved the vehicle forward. That in spite of
Gabat’s order to stop the vehicle, Ligon said that it could not be done due the the
moving vehicular traffic. When Ortiz fell down, Gabat shouted at Ligon but the
latter replied that they should go on to Las Pinas and report the incident to the
parents of Gabat and that later they would come back to the scene of the incident.
At this point, the Kombi was blocked by Castillo’s taxi and the jeep driven by the
policeman.

The trial court gave full credence to Castillo’s testimony and dismissed Gabat’s
testimony on the ground that it is of common knowledge that cigarette vendors
do not let go of their cigarette. Gabat was convicted by the trial court; Hence, this
appeal.

Issue:

Whether a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability.

Held:

According to the Court of Appeals, although Castillo is a disinterested witness,

his testimony even if not tainted with bias is not entirely free from doubt
because his observation of the event could have been faulty. Castillo’s taxi was
driving a car lower in height compared to the Kombi. The windshield of the
Kombi (1978 model) is occupying approximately 1/3 of the rear end of the
vehicle making it visually difficult for Castillo to observe what clearly transpired.
Also, Castillo’s statement given to the police on the evening of the incident did
not mention that he saw Gabat forcibly prying off the hand of Rosales from the
windowsill though such appeared in the police report.

Given the circumstances, the Court is not convinced with moral certainty that the
guilt of Gabat was established beyond reasonable doubt. As such he is acquitted.
However, such does not necessarily exempt him from civil liability as such only
requires a preponderance of evidence and such evidence is sufficient to establish
Gabat’s liability. The Court finds Gabat’s act and omission with fault and
negligence caused damage to Ortiz. That he failed to prevent the driver from
moving forward while the purchase was completed; He failed to help Ortiz while
the latter clung to the moving vehicle; e did not enforce his order to Ligon to
stop; and that he acquiesced in the driver’s act of speeding away instead of
stopping and picking up Ortiz.

His acquittal in the criminal prosecution does not bar the heirs of Ortiz from
recovering damages. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability
only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist.

Wherefore, Gabat is sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Ortiz the amount of

P15,000 for the latter’s death, P1,733 for hospital and medical expenses, 4,100
for funeral expenses, and the alleged loss of income amounting to P20,000.