This case involved Pedro Elcano filing a civil suit for damages against Reginald Hill and his father Marvin Hill after Reginald was acquitted of criminally killing Agapito Elcano. The Court of First Instance dismissed the civil suit, finding it was barred by the criminal acquittal. However, the Supreme Court held that the acquittal in the criminal case did not extinguish Reginald's civil liability and did not bar the civil suit for damages. Under Philippine law, an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to a subsequent civil suit for damages arising from the same negligent or wrongful act.
This case involved Pedro Elcano filing a civil suit for damages against Reginald Hill and his father Marvin Hill after Reginald was acquitted of criminally killing Agapito Elcano. The Court of First Instance dismissed the civil suit, finding it was barred by the criminal acquittal. However, the Supreme Court held that the acquittal in the criminal case did not extinguish Reginald's civil liability and did not bar the civil suit for damages. Under Philippine law, an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to a subsequent civil suit for damages arising from the same negligent or wrongful act.
This case involved Pedro Elcano filing a civil suit for damages against Reginald Hill and his father Marvin Hill after Reginald was acquitted of criminally killing Agapito Elcano. The Court of First Instance dismissed the civil suit, finding it was barred by the criminal acquittal. However, the Supreme Court held that the acquittal in the criminal case did not extinguish Reginald's civil liability and did not bar the civil suit for damages. Under Philippine law, an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to a subsequent civil suit for damages arising from the same negligent or wrongful act.
Reginald Hill was accused of killing Agapito Elcano.
Hill was subsequently acquitted on the ground that his act was not considered criminal because of "a lack of intent to kill, coupled with a mistake."
Pedro Elcano, the father of the victim Agapito,
filed a case for the recovery of damages instead against Reginald and his father, Marvin Hill, before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City.
The Hills filed a motion to dismiss, alleging, among
other things, that the action is barred by a prior judgment that is now final and or in res adjudicata. The Court of First Instance granted the motion. Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the action for recovery of damages by the
Elcanos is barred by the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case filed against him. -- NO.
HELD:
The acquittal of Reginald Hill does not extinguish
his liability for quasi-delict, and the acquittal is not a bar to a civil action for damages.
Under Art. 2177, acquittal from an accusation of
criminal negligence shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, nor for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi- delict, or culpa aquiliana.
Art. 2177 means 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 actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores and would be entitled in such an eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
Culpa acquiliana includes voluntary and negligent
acts that may or may not be punished by law.
In the case of Barredo vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court
held that a negligent act can result in civil liability under the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the court said that an act of negligence may be the proper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under the Civil Code (1902).