JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL VS MARIA CHRYSANTINE PIMENTEL G.R. No.

172060 September 13, 2010 Facts: Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In addition, petitioner received summons to appear before the Court for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity. Subsequently, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of Civil Case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City. The RTC and CA denied the motion hence this petition for review before the SC. Issue: whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner. Ruling: Negative. The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action. Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal action. There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.

Under the Rules. the MPD instituted a criminal action. against Cadiz for violating the Public Assembly Act in staging a rally at a venue not indicated in the permit. to be participated in by IBP officers and members. Ruling: The CA erred in this decision. is the danger. 2010 Facts: The IBP and petitioners in this case filed with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila a letter application for a permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge from 2:30 p. The petition having been unresolved within 24 hours from its filing.R.m. It is not to be limited. except on a showing. Issue: WON appellate court erred in holding that the modification of the venue in IBP’s rally permit does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. much less denied. Respondent issued a permit but indicated therein Plaza Miranda as the venue. petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. of a character both grave and imminent. the appellate court ruled on the pending petition as moot and lack of merit otherwise denied. Issue: WON the issues presented CA pose a prejudicial question to the criminal case against Cadiz Ruling: Negative. law students and multi-sectoral organizations. No. or any other legitimate public interest. public health. 175241 February 24. and not before this Court in an appeal from the civil action. respondent failed to indicate in his Comment any basis or explanation for his action. MAYOR JOSE "LITO" ATIENZA G. Notably. The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right. of a serious evil to public safety. Afterwards. Aggrieved. petitioners filed before this Court a petition for certiorari assailing the appellate court’s inaction or refusal to resolve the petition within the period provided under the Public Assembly Act of 1985. to 5:30 p. This Court denied the petition in view of the pendency in Court of Appeals petition. It smacks of whim and caprice for respondent to just impose a change of venue for an assembly that was slated for a specific public place. public morals.IBP vs. of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. . so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions.m. instead of Mendiola Bridge. Since suspension of the proceedings in the criminal action may be made only upon petition and not at the instance of the judge or the investigating prosecutor. as is the case with freedom of expression. In the meantime. The rally pushed through at Mendiola Bridge. the existence of a prejudicial question is a ground in a petition to suspend proceedings in a criminal action. the latter cannot take cognizance of a claim of prejudicial question without a petition to suspend being filed. the determination of the pendency of a prejudicial question should be made at the first instance in the criminal action. Since a petition to suspend can be filed only in the criminal action.

suddenly entered the restaurant. The spouses were in their restaurant when three men. The robbers were total strangers whom she saw very briefly. and whether there could have been a reliable independent recall of Rodrigo’s identity. This time element alone raises the question of whether Rosita had sufficiently focused on Rodrigo to remember him. No.00. . the sole eyewitness in the case.PEOPLE VS LEE RODRIGO. It is unfortunate that there is no direct evidence of how long the actual robbery and the accompanying homicide lasted. declared a holdup. seeing what was happening. Rosita.R. While the robbery was in progress. 176159 Facts: The spouses Paquito Buna and Rosita Cabrera-Buna (Rosita) owned a restaurant. the photograph was the only one shown to her at that time The case for the defense relied solely on the testimony of Rodrigo who interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Rodrigo pleaded not guilty upon. Issue: WON the lower court erred in their decision by failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court based on the other indicators of this unreliability. On re-cross-examination. The lower Courts convicted the accused hence this petition. et al. Rosita admitted that she initially identified Rodrigo by means of a photograph shown to her at the police station. Rosita rushed Paquito to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. As to identification of the accused. it appears in the examination that Rosita did not know the robbers and only identified them through a single picture presented to her in the Police station. Paquito came out of the kitchen and. After the robbers left. grabbed a “bangko”. Rosita’s identification cannot be considered as proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of Rodrigo as one of the perpetrators of the crime. he was instantly fired upon three times. Ruling: Affirmative and impressed the court to acquit the accused. and immediately proceeded to divest the two customers of their money and the restaurant of its earnings of P500. G. armed with guns. Rodrigo and two men bearing the aliases of “Lyn Lyn” and “Bunso” were formally charged of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is the basic rule that the prosecution carries the burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. identified Rodrigo in court as one of the three armed men who robbed the restaurant and its customers. Rosita afterwards filed a criminal complaint through her Sinumpaang Salaysay where she identified Rodrigo as among the men who robbed the restaurant and killed her husband.

180380 August 4. He was presented in the court and stated his version of the incident. Ruling: Affirmative. being usually taken ex parte. . The three accused. Rodel and a certain Bernardino “Jojo” Maestro were charged before the RTC with the crime of Murder. if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. with the assistance of counsel. repudiating his first affidavit. Raymund. Furthermore. He had been threatened by a certain Wilson. On appeal. the prosecution presented eight witnesses. Jovencio executed a second affidavit. for alibi to prosper. a minor. an eyewitness of the incident executed an affidavit of his testimony positively identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the offense. Raymund is exempted from the liability thereon being 15 years below at the commission of the offense while Rodel’s conviction was sustained. Jovencio. an affidavit of recantation. inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness. the CA affirm the RTC decision with modification. and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Denial. The accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi. Jovencio made his third sworn statement substantially reverting to his first affidavit. two elements must concur: (a) the accused was in another place at the time the crime was committed. their defense was much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. A recantation is exceedingly unreliable. is a negative and self-serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. As held by this Court. would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open court.R. Jovencio explained why he executed the second affidavit or the affidavit of recantation. Issue: WON the parties and their witnesses are credible in the case. The testimony of Jovencio was substantiated by the medical findings supported Jovencio’s account. On trial. pleaded not guilty. In the case under consideration. 2009 Facts: For the death of AAA. The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the 3 accused of the crime of homicide with appreciation of mitigating circumstance of minority. which supposedly exonerated petitioners. petitioners Raymund and Rodel could only muster mere denial. The affidavit of recantation executed by a witness prior to the trial cannot prevail over the testimony made during the trial. He executed his first affidavit but because of the threat made on him by a certain Wilson. Besides. an uncle of Raymund and Rodel. Unfortunately for them. It cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution. And finally. No. Issue: WON the changing testimony in affidavit will affect the witness’s credibility Ruling: Negative. who was a relative of petitioners. it was not physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene and to be participants in the gruesome crime.RAYMUND MADALI AND RODEL MADALI VS PEOPLE G.

the petition just the same fails. 2004 Decision acquitting respondent of murder. Thus. To wit. is to state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to prove his guilt or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. on the merits. 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.R. Garces entered his appearance as counsel for the father of the victim. In his Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court. petitioner admitted that he “did not waive the civil action or reserve the right to institute it separately nor did he institute the civil action prior to the criminal action. al G. Hence this petition to the SC. et. Petitioner assailed the trial court’s denial of his motions via Certiorari before the Court of Appeals which was subsequently dismissed for lack of merit. 2010 Facts: In its November 10.ROMAN GARCES VS SIMPLICIO HERNANDEZ.. . acquittal is immediately final and executor with no remedy to appeal. it shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Atty. JR. as correctly ruled by the appellate court. The trial court dismissed the motion for the counsel appears to have no legal personality to file the motion. Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that in case of acquittal of an accused. Rule 111. Rule 120. The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. No. Roman Garces (petitioner). Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: SECTION 1. reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. the court ruled that filing the petition regarding the acquittal of the accused would run against the prohibition of double jeopardy. Technicality aside. and filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s decision respecting respondents’ civil liability. Issue: WON the lower court judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. to appeal within the reglementary period the trial court’s decision.” Petitioner’s remedy then was. the same should properly file as separate civil action and not in the same criminal case. which was silent on the civil aspect of the case. 180761 August 9. Florentino H. Ruling: Negative. – (a) When a criminal action is instituted. and in either case. As regards to his claim for civil liability where the accused was acquitted. Institution of criminal and civil actions. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City for the prosecution’s failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused. After the promulgation of judgment. that the counsel does not appear as a counsel for the prosecution.

Armando Nablo and an unidentified woman. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Sta. the jeep’s driver. according to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability – Articles 102 and 103 – are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers. Two of the jeep’s passengers. 190696 August 3. No. Calang was charged criminally before the RTC.ROLITO CALANG and PHILTRANCO VS PEOPLE G. is AFFIRMED. Samar collided with Sarao jeep coming from the opposite direction. were instantly killed. with the MODIFICATIONthat Philtranco’s liability should only be subsidiary. The CA added that the RTC correctly held Philtranco jointly and severally liable with petitioner Calang. Undisputedly. The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals where it affirmed the RTC decision in toto.R. and bumped and killed Jose Mabansag. 2010 Facts: While Rolito Calang was driving Philtranco Bus No. for failing to prove that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the accident. The prosecution charged Calang with multiple homicide. If at all. Margarita. multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property. a bystander who was standing along the highway’s shoulder. owned by Philtranco along Daang Maharlika Highway in Barangay Lambao. As a result. . Philtranco was not a direct party in this case. multiple physical injuries and damage to property. found Calang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide. Philtranco’s liability may only be subsidiary. Rolito Calang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide. In its decision. while the other passengers sustained serious physical injuries. Such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict. lost control of the vehicle. Issue: WON there was no basis to hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang because the former was not a party in the criminal case Ruling: The lower courts both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. Wherefore. tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments and the same arises subsidiary liability applies to employers. 7001. multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City. Cresencio Pinohermoso.

2009 Facts: the JC Liner3 driven by petitioner Sonny Romero and the Apego Taxi4 driven by Jimmy Padua figured in a head-on collision. 167546 July 17. the MTC acquitted petitioner of the crime charged in a decision however he was held civilly liable and was ordered to pay the heirs of the victims the total amount of P3. . The failure of the evidence to prove negligence with moral certainty does not negate (and is in fact compatible with) a ruling that there was preponderant evidence of such negligence.900. However. Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple serious physical injuries with damage to property in the MTC of Ocampo. Camarines Sur. The collision resulted in the death of 6 persons and two sustained a serious injury. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. his civil liability for the death. unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.541. Ruling: Negative. petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And that is sufficient to hold him civilly liable. In view of the pronouncements of the MTC and the RTC the Court agreed with the conclusion of the CA that petitioner was acquitted not because he did not commit the crime charged but because the RTC and the MTC could not ascertain with moral conviction the wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus at the time of the accident. Petitioner appealed to the RTC and CA but the both sustained the lower court’s decision.R. Put differently. injuries and damages arising from the collision is another matter.SONNY ROMERO Y DOMINGUEZ vs. After trial on the merits. Issue: WON the petitioner since acquitted should be freed from payment of civil liability. No. the rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not necessarily extinguish his civil liability.