Criminal Procedure a2010 page 110 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
JARANTILLA v CA (SING)
171 SCRA 429REGALADO; March 21, 1989
Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appealsupholding the decision of the trial court awardingdamages to the private respondent.
- Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swipedby a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznartStreet, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appealsconcurred in the findings of the court
that thesaid vehicle which figured in the mishap, aVolkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven bypetitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street towardthe direction of the provincial capitol, and thatprivate respondent sustained physical injuries as aconsequence.- Petitioner was accordingly charged before the thenCity Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thrureckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207thereof.
Private respondent, as the complainingwitness therein, did not reserve his right to institutea separate civil action and he intervened in theprosecution of said criminal case through a privateprosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminalcase "on reasonable doubt".- On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed acomplaint against the petitioner in the former Courtof First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV,
docketed thereinas Civil Case No. 9976, and which civil actioninvolved the same subject matter and actcomplained of in Criminal Case No. 47027.
In hisanswer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as specialand affirmative detenses that the private respondenthad no cause of action and, additionally, that thelatter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch aswhen said criminal case was instituted the civilliability was also deemed instituted since thereinplaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and activelyparticipated in the criminal case.- Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of thereindefendant, the trial court issued on April 3, 1975 anorder of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in thisCourt a petition for
, prohibition andmandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992,assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. Saidpetition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court'sresolution of July 23, 1975, and a motion forreconsideration thereof was denied for the samereason in a resolution of October 28, 1975.- After trial, the court below rendered judgment onMay 23, 1977 in favor of the herein privaterespondent and ordering herein petitioner to paydamages. Thus, petitioner appealed said decision tothe CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto thedecision of the trial court with a few changes in theamount of the damages to be paid.
WON the private respondent, who was thecomplainant in the criminal action for physicalinjuries thru reckless imprudence and whoparticipated in the prosecution thereof withoutreserving the civil action arising from the act oromission complained of, can file a separate action forcivil liability arising from the same act or omissionwhere the herein petitioner was acquitted in thecriminal action on reasonable doubt and no civilliability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgmentof acquittal
YES- The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to file a separatecivil case and his intervention in the criminal case didnot bar him from filing such separate civil action fordamages.
The allegations of the complaint filed by theprivate respondent supports and is constitutive of acase for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. The
Court has also heretofore ruled in
Elcano vs. Hill
that:... a separate civil action lies against the offenderin a criminal act whether or not he is criminallyprosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, providedthat the offended party is not allowed, if he is alsoactually charged criminally, to recover damages onboth scores; and would be entitled in sucheventuality only to the bigger award of the two,assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.In other words, the extinction of civil liabilityreferred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refersexclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civilliability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguishedeven by a declaration in the criminal case that thecriminal act charged has not happened or has notbeen committed by the accused . . .- The aforecited case of
Lontoc vs. MD Transit & TaxiCo., Inc., et al
. involved virtually the same factualsituation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusionhereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that thefailure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right tofile a separate civil case is not fatal; that hisintervention in the criminal case did not bar him fromfiling a separate civil action for damages, especiallyconsidering that the accused therein was acquittedbecause his guilt was not proved beyond reasonabledoubt; that the two cases were anchored on twodifferent causes of action, the criminal case being ona violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Codewhile the subsequent complaint for damages wasbased on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment inthe criminal case the aspect of civil liability was notpassed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civilcase may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of theCivil Code.- Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where thetrial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt,it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civilliability of the accused and the complainant could filea petition for mandamus to compel the trial court toinclude such civil liability in the judgment of acquittal. And that the failure of the court to makeany pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as tothe civil liability of the accused amounts to areservation of the right to have the civil liabilitylitigated and determined in a separate action. Therules nowhere provide that if the court fails todetermine the civil liability it becomes no longerenforceable.
Decision of CA affirmed, petion denied.
PEOPLE v USANA and LOPEZ
323 SCRA 754DAVIDE; January 28, 2000
Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Courtconvicting the two accused together with Julian D.Escano for the violation of R.A. 6425, as amended
- On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gunban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police weremanning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator GilPuyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway. Theywere checking the cars going to Pasay City, stoppingthose they found suspicious, and imposing merely arunning stop on the others. At about past midnight,