Case Digest Prepared by: Sheila

Philippine Rabbit v. People

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

Court First DIvision Date April 14, 2004

Citation G.R. No. 147703 Ponente Panganiban, J.

Petitioner PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. [Rabbit]

Respondent PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Doctrine

[Sec. 1, Rule 111] "When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.”

The civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 23 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate,
distinct and independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the same act.
 Direct consequences of such revision and omission:
a. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the NCC need not be reserved in the criminal
prosecution, since they are deemed included therein.
b. The institution or waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime charged
does not extinguish the right to bring an independent civil action.
c. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for the same act or
omission.
 What is automatically instituted in a criminal action is a civil action ex delicto, not those arising
from quasi-delicts, contracts, or quasi-contracts.

Allowing an employer to proceed independently would be to enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final
judgment that they are not a party to and runs the risk of a violation of the employee’s right against double
jeopardy.

Case Summary

An employee of Rabbit was found guilty and convicted of reckless imprudence. The employee jumped bail
which waived his right to appeal. Rabbit now wants to proceed independently and appeal the decision
without Roman. The Court disagreed.

FACTS
 July 27, 1994. Napoleon Macadangdang Roman [employee of Rabbit] was found guilty and convicted
of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage
to property. He was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years, and to pay damages.
o Court ruled Rabbit shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused in the event of insolvency.
 Roman jumped bail and remained at-large → [Sec. 8, Rule 124] dismissal of appeal is authorized when
appellant jumps bail.
 Rabbit now wants to appeal the decision even without Roman.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

 Institution of criminal case = institution of civil action. Once determined, employer’s subsidiary civil
liability becomes conclusive and enforceable [Art. 103, RPC]
 To allow an employer to dispute independently the civil liability fixed in the criminal case would be to
amend, nullify, or defeat a final judgment.
  Notice of appeal was already dismissed → judgment of conviction and the award of civil liability
became final and executory.

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD

WON employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused-employee, NO

may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused.

RATIO
Basic Rules and Principles
 General Rule: [Sec. 1, Rule 122] "Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the
accused will be placed in double jeopardy."
o Includes if accused would be given a more severe penalty. Any party means the government,
accused, and offended party.
 For an Appeal of an Accused Who Jumped Bail: [Sec. 8, Rule 124] "The Court of Appeals may also,
upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or
confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal."
o Rationale: Appellants lose their standing in court when they abscond. They are deemed to have
waived their right to seek judicial relief, unless they surrender or submit to the court’s
jurisdiction.
o Also applies to one who bails during the appeal or during trial.
▪ Justice Regalado: If accused escaped during arraignment and trial, was tried in
absentia, and his counsel appealed, he must be dismissed by analogy to Sec. 8, Rule
124.
o Accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction
of the court or was arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment.
 On finality of a decision in a criminal case: it may be modified or set aside before it becomes final or
before appeal is perfected. ICAB, employee-accused’s escape means he abandoned his right to
appeal, thus, judgment has become final and executory.
 On Liability of an Employer in a Finding of Guilt: [Art. 102 and 103 of RPC] he is subsidiarily liable to
the actions of his employee.

Main Issue: Civil Liability Deemed Instituted in the Criminal Prosecution

[Sec. 1, Rule 111] "When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action.”

 Hence, subsidiary civil liability of employer may be enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment
of conviction meted out to the employee.
 The civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 23 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate,
distinct and independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the same act.
 Direct consequences of such revision and omission:
d. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the NCC need not be reserved in the criminal
prosecution, since they are deemed included therein.
e. The institution or waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime charged
does not extinguish the right to bring an independent civil action.
f. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for the same act or
omission.

 What is automatically instituted in a criminal action is a civil action ex delicto, not those arising from
quasi-delicts, contracts, or quasi-contracts.
2
  Even if a civil action is filed independently, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal
prosecution remains, and the offended party may – subject to the control of the prosecutor – still
intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest therein.
 Employers have an interest in the criminal action against their employee, however, they cannot act
independently on their own behalf, but can only defend the accused [i.e., assist their employees to
the extent of supplying the lawyers]

 On Waiver of Constitutional Safeguard Against Double Jeopardy: It is clear that the intention of the
employer in this appeal is to open the case to review, and this runs the risk of violating the right against
double jeopardy of the employee-accused [such that a higher penalty may be meted out].
 On the Effect of Absconding on the Appeal Process: Right to appeal can be waived expressly or
impliedly. By jumping bail, the accused impliedly waived his right to appeal. Such conduct is intolerable
and does not invite leniency. Consequently, the judgment against an appellant who escapes and who
refuses to surrender to the proper authorities becomes final and executory.
 On Subsidiary Liability Upon Finality of Judgment: The subsidiary liability of employers are deemed
written into the judgments in the cases to which they are applicable [Trial Court need not expressly
pronounce subsidiary liability]. The liability of the employer cannot be separated from that of the
employee.
o Required evidence to establish subsidiary liability:
1. They are indeed the employers of the convicted employees.
2. That the former are engaged in some kind of industry.
3. That the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties.
4. That the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency.
o Rabbit’s participation in helping during the criminal proceedings does not make transform the
nature of their liability [their contention was that all the other cases had an employed that did not
help employee at all].
o The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil
liability of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and
enforceable by reason of his flight, then the former's subsidiary civil liability has also become
immediately enforceable.
 No deprivation of due process.

ICAB:
 Rabbit is not a direct party to the criminal case, which was filed solely against Roman. An appeal in
such a circumstance is impossible.
 It has been sufficiently proven that there exists an employer-employee relationship.
 It should be clear that only after proof of his insolvency may the subsidiary liability of petitioner be
enforced.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner. SO ORDERED.