Case Digest Articles 29-35

Notes

Art 29 (Dependent Civil Action) – Provision

When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant,
the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgement of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him from civil
liability is one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine legal system.
- It has given rise to numberless instances of miscarriage of justice.
- There is a clear difference between criminal liability and civil responsibility
- Criminal liability affects social order while civil responsibility affects private
rights.
- Criminal liability is for the punishment or correction of the offender while civil
responsibility is for the reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party.
- The Kind of Acquittal Contemplated
- The accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt.
- Acquittal is based on the following
- The guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
- The accused is not the author of the crime
- The crime complained of did not exist
- Acquittal which bars Civil Action
- The accused is not the author of the crime
- No crimes existed (on which the civil action is based)
- When the acquittal is based on pure innocence and not reasonable doubt
- If there is a finding that in a final judgement in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist
- Acquittal which does not Bar Civil Action
- The liability of accused is not criminal but only civil
- The Civil liability is not based on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted
- When the action is based on quasi-delict (a wrong that occurs unintentionally, as a
result of negligence)
- When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt

- Prescription of a Criminal Action, not a bar to Civil Action

- The dismissal of a crime based on prescription (statute of limitation, lapse of a
definite period from the commission of the offense) will not bar the filing of a
civil action based on the same act or omission specially if pursued as a quasi-
delict or based on the principle of unjust enrichment.
- Difference between Civil Actions and Independent Civil Actions
- Dependent Civil Actions if not reserved will be deemed impliedly instituted with
the criminal action. If reserved, they may be prosecuted independently but must
wait for the outcome of the criminal case
- Independent Civil Action can proceed simultaneously and separately from the
criminal action regardless of the outcome of the latter
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 30 (Dependent Civil Action) – Provision

When a separate Civil action is brought to demand a civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a
preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

This article does not cover Independent Civil actions. It speaks of dependent civil actions which
are instituted in the criminal action unless the offended party expressly reserves the right to
institute them separately.
- No Criminal case should have been filed during the pendency of the civil case.
- The Civil action will be suspended if in the meantime, the criminal case is filed.
Reason for reservation
- To prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or
omission against the offender
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 31 (Independent Civil Action) - Provision

When the Civil Action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter.

The Civil action contemplated in the article is one which arises not from the act or omission
complained of as a felony.
- It arises from some other acts such as:
- Contract or suit based on culpa contractual
- Legal Obligation to return money malversed
- A suit based on quasi-delict
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 32 (Independent Civil Action) – Provision

Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1. Freedom or religion
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
5. Freedom of suffrage
6. The right against deprivation of property without due process of law
7. The right to s just compensation when private property is taken for public use
8. The right to the equal protection of the laws
9. The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
11. The privacy of communication and correspondence
12. The right to become a member of association or societies for purposes not contrary to law
13. The right to take part in a peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances
14. The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail
 16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a state witness
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional
19. Freedom of access to the courts

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief.

This article provides for the imposition of damages upon any public officer or public employee
or any private person, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs the 19 listed rights.
- Because Fiscals are burdened with too many cases, or he believes the evidence is
insufficient, or on account of disinclination to prosecute a fellow public official,
especially when he is of high rank. This leaves the aggrieved Citizen without redress.
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 33 (Independent Civil Action) - Provision

In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.

Allows a Citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him, regardless of the action
of the state attorney.
There is a long line of decisions holding that the civil action under Article 33 need not be
reserved because the law itself already makes the reservation
Coverage:
1. Defamation
- Committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means of libel.
- A defamation orally perpetuated is slander.
2. Fraud
- Estafa and swindling.
3. Physical Injuries
- It is not confined to the crime of physical injuries under Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265,
266 of the Revised Penal Code. It is used in its generic sense, it covers all kinds of
physical injuries, including attempted, frustrated, consummated homicide.
- Old Rule: It only applies to injuries intentionally committed.
- New Rule: the court allows the prosecution of the civil action for damages arising
from homicide with reckless imprudence independently of the criminal action.
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 34 (Independent Civil Action) – Provision

When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to
any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible thereof. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.

This article covers a stipulation that:

1. There is a danger to the life or property of a person
2. A member of a city or municipal police force who is present in the scene refused or failed
to render aid or protection to the person
3. Damages are caused either to the person and/ or property of the victim
______________________________________________________________________________

Art 35 (Dependent Civil Action) – Provision

When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for
which no independent civil action is granted in this code or any special law, but the justice of the
peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting
attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action
for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance
of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to
indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

Does not cover an independent civil action

- What is covered in the Article is a situational where the act or acts committed constitute a
criminal offense but there is no independent civil action authorized by the Civil Code or
any special law. The offended party is allowed to file a civil action for damages against
the offender.
- If during the pendency of the civil action the criminal case was filed in court, the civil
action will be suspended and to await the termination of the criminal case.
- The article also covers situations:
- Where a Municipal Judge of a Municipality who is authorized to conduct
preliminary investigation dismisses a criminal case for lack of responsible ground
to hold the accused for trial
- When the public prosecutor fails to institute any criminal case against the alleged
offender.
- Under the mentioned situations, the offended party can file the civil action
for damages with the proper court.
Plaintiff’s Bond may be required
- The imposition of a bond would discourage the filling of malicious complaints.
- It should be noted that at this point the Criminal case was already dismissed. It is possible
that the Civil Case is being pursued only for purposes of malicious harassment.
______________________________________________________________________________

Notes
Remedy of offended party (civil liabilities)
1. Restitution
- To restore the thing (e.g. in theft the culprit is duty-bound to return the property
stolen).
2. Reparation of Damage Caused
- In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the value of the
property stolen
3. Indemnification for consequential damages
- The loss of his salary of earning

Dependent Civil Actions

1. Instituted with the criminal action
- The prosecution needs to prove the damages of the offended party since the civil
aspect is included in the criminal case. This happens when the offended party failed
to make a reservation to pursue a separate civil action.
2. Separate Civil action
- This could be prosecuted during the pendency of the criminal action subject only to
the limitation that there shall be no double recovery of damages.
- This happens when the offended party made a reservation to institute the civil action
separately before the prosecution starts to present its evidence.
- It is allowed for the civil action to be instituted prior to the presentation of evidence
of the prosecution even if there was no reservation made and the judge handling the
criminal case was duly informed thereof.

Prohibition on reserving a dependent civil action

- There is no reservation if it involves cases under BP 22 (anti-bouncing checks law).
- The Court provides that there should be joint hearing for BP 22.

Distinction between Proof beyond reasonable doubt and Preponderance of evidence

1. Proof Beyond Reasonable doubt
- Criminal action
- There is moral certainty on the part of the judge that the accused is indeed the author
of the crime.
- It should not include any error
- Free from all biases
2. Preponderance of evidence
- Civil Action
- The evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior over that of the other.
- Factors affecting preponderance of evidence:
o Facts and circumstance of the case
o Intelligence
o Credibility of witness
People, petitioner vs Bayotas, respondent.

Facts
Rogelio Bayotas was charged with rape and eventually convicted thereon. During the pending appeal on
his conviction, Bayotas died at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest.
Consequently, the SC dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal.

Issue
Whether or not the death of the accused during the pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his civil
liability.

Ruling
Yes. The death of the accused during the pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. The death of the accused prior to final
judgement terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability arising from and based solely on the
offense committed.

Exceptions:
- The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict/crime (i.e. law, contracts, quasi-
contracts, quasi-delicts).
- Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefore may be pursued but only
by way of filing a separate civil action. This may be enforced against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation
upon which the same is based.

Daluraya, petitioner, vs. Oliva, respondent

Facts
On January 4, 2006, Daluraya was charged for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide in connection
with the death of Marina Oliva. Sormetime in the atternoon of lanuary 3, 2006, Marina Oliva was
crossing the street when Daluraya ran her over. While Marina Oliva was rushed to the hospital to receive
medical attention, she eventually died, prompting her daughter, herein respondent Marla Oliva (Marla), to
file a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide against Daluraya, the purported
driver of the vehicle. Daluraya filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss (demurrer) asserting, inter alia, that he
was not positively identified by any of the prosecution witnesses as the driver of the vehicle that hit the
victim, and that there was no clear and competent evidence of how the incident transpired. MeTC:
granted Daluraya's demurrer and dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. It found that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were wanting in material details and that they failed to
sufficiently establish that Daluraya committed the crime imputed upon him.

Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in finding Daluroya civilly liable for Marina Oliva's death despite his
acquittal in the criminal case

Ruling
Yes, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The acquittal of an accused of the
crime charged, however, does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability. in Manantan v. CA, the Court
expounded on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects on the civil
liability of the accused, as follows: Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the
civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act
or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been
found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or
omission. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In
this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from
civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. However, the civil action based
on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on final judgement in the criminal action that
the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not
commit the acts or omission imputed to him. In the present case, Daluraya’s acquittal was based on the
fact that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
Article 31 – Case Digest

People, petitioner, vs. Dionaldo, et al, Accused-appellants.

Facts
Accused-appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. In view of the suspended imposition of the death penalty pursuant to
RA No. 9346, only the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed upon the accused-appellants.
However, it should be noted that both the RTC and CA failed to award civil indemnity as well as
damages to the family of the kidnapped victim.

ISSUE
Whether or not accused-appellants defendants are civilly liable

Ruling
YES. In People v. Quiachon, the Court explained that even if the death penalty was not to be
imposed on accused appellants in view of the prohibition in RA 9346, the award of civil
indemnity was nonetheless proper, not being dependent on the actual imposition of the death
penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death
penalty attended the commission of the crime. In the present case, considering that both the
qualifying circumstances of ransom and the death of the victim during captivity were duly
alleged in the information and proven during trial, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00
must therefore be awarded to the family of the victim, to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.
Similarly, the Court finds that the award of moral damages is warranted in this case. Under
Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and similar injury, while Article 2219 of the
same Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention. It cannot
be denied, in this case, that the kidnap victim's family suffered mental anguish, fright, and
serious anxiety over the detention and eventually, the death of Edwin. As such, and in
accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 must
perforce be awarded to the family of the victim. Finally, exemplary damages must be awarded in
this case, in view of the confluence of the aforesaid qualifyin8 circumstances and in order to
deter others from committing the in atrocious acts. accordance with prevailing same
jurisprudence, therefore, the Court awards exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to
the family of the kidnap victim.

Article 31 – Case Digest

Dy, petitioner, vs. People, respondent.

Facts
In May 1996, Dy proposed to Mandy the purchase of a property owned by Pantranco. Mandy
agreed to take a P20milion loan from international China Bank of Commerce (ICBC) secured by
a chattel mortgage over the warehouses in the Numancia Property. Dy was entrusted to manage
the payment of the loan. February 1999 A notice of foreclosure was received by MCCI. Around
25 checks amounting to P21million was issued by MCCI (all payable to cash). Mandy delivered
the checks to Dy. Mandy claims that he delivered the checks with the instruction that petitioner
use the checks to pay the loan. Dy, on the other hand, testified that she encashed the checks and
returned the money to Mandy. ICBC eventually foreclosed on the property as MCCI continued
to default in fts obligation. Mandy eventually found out that not a check was paid to ICBC. On
Oct. 2002, a complaint for Estafa was filed by MCCI, through Mandy, against Dy. The RTC
Manila found that while petitioner admitted that she received the checks, the prosecution failed
to establish that she was under any obligation to deliver them to ICBC in payment of MCC's
loan. RTC found strength in Mandy's admission that Mandy gave the checks to Dy with the
agreement that Dy would encash them. Then Dy would pay ICBC using her own checks. RTC
held that Mandy and petitioner entered into a contract of loan. Thus, it held that the prosecution
failed to establish an important element of the crime of estafa misappropriation or conversion.
Dy is acquitted but still ordered to pay the amount of checks (P21,706,281.00) to complainant

Issue
Whether or not the lower court erred when they ordered petitioner to pay her civil obligation
arising from a contract of loan in the same criminal case where she was acquitted on the ground
that there was no crime.

Ruling
Yes, the lower courts erred when they ordered petitioner to pay her civil obligation arising from
a contract of loan in the same criminal case where she was acquitted on the ground that there was
no crime. Any contractual obligation she may have must be litigated in a separate legal action
involving the contract of loan. In cases where the accused is acquitted on the ground that there is
no crime, the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal case cannot prosper precisely
because there is no delict from which any civil obligation may be sourced.

Article 31 – Case Digest

People, petitioner, vs. Calomia, Accused-appelant.

Facts
Accused-appelant Ruben Calomia was charged before the RTC with two counts of qualified rape
of his minor daughter, AAA which he allegedly committed sometimes in August 2007 and April
2008. After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its decision accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of both counts of qualified rape. During the pendency of the case, the
court was informed that the said appellant has died while in the confinement of Bohol District
Jail due to strangulation, self-inflicted, hanging and declared dead by the medical officer.

Issue
Whether or not the death of Calomia pending his appeal extinguishes his civil liability.

Ruling
Yes, it is extinguished. Paragraph 1 of article 89 of the revised penal code, as amended, provides
that the death of an accused pending his appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil liability.

Article 31 – Case Digest

Alastair John Cane, petitioner vs. Patricia Roggenkamp, private complainant.

Facts
On March 30, 2006, an information for Violation of RA No. 9262 or VAWC was filed against
Alastair John, with Patricia as the private complainant. However, the RTC acquitted Alastair
John on the ground of reasonable doubt. Thereafter, Patricia filed a complaint for damages
based on Article 33 of the Civil Code before the Regional Trial Court praying for actual, moral,
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Patricia argued that the right of action provided
Article 33 in cases of physical injuries is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action
earlier commenced against Alastair John.

Issue
Whether or not petitioner may still be held civilly liable because his acquittal was based on
reasonable doubt.

Ruling
Yes, Article 33 of the New Civil Code (NCC) is explicit that in cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, the civil action is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action and
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. Reservation of the right to separately
file a civil action for damages under article 33 need not even be made. The only limitation is that
an offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Further, defamation, fraud, and physical injuries as used in article 33 are to be understood in
their ordinary sense. Specifically, the physical injuries contemplated in article 33 is bodily injury,
not the physical injuries referred to in the revised penal code.