SUBJECT:

TOPIC:

Date Made:

Digest Maker:

TORTS

Culpa Aquiliana
distinguished from
Crime

Aug 26, 2016

Yenyen Te

CASE NAME: Elcano vs Hill

PONENTE: Barredo, J.

Case Date: May 26, 1977

Case Summary:
Reginald Hill (a minor who was married at the time) killed the sons of petitioners Elcano but
was acquitted in the criminal case due to lack of intent, coupled with mistake. Petitioners
then filed a civil suit for recovery of damages, but this was dismissed on the basis of a Motion
to Dismiss filed by Hill. Thus, petitioners Hill brought the case on appeal to the SC. The Court
ultimately ruled that the dismissal was NOT warranted, because an acquittal in a criminal case
does not necessarily free an accused from paying indemnity in a civil case for quasi-delict or
culpia aquiliana. In this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa
aquiliana, under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized. Therefore, the petitioners
can still recover damages under Article 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. Additionally, the Court
also ruled on whether or not Hills father can be excused as a defendant due to Reginalds
emancipation through marriage they said that although marriage emancipates minors from
their parents, it does not do so fully, especially if they are still relying on them for subsistence.
Furthermore, Art. 2180 provides that the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company. Given that Reginald is still living with his father and is dependent on him, his liability
is not completely distinguished.
Rule of Law:
ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.

Detailed Facts:

Reginald Hill (a minor, married at the time) killed Agapito Elcano, son of the plaintiffs
Reginald was prosecuted in a criminal case but was acquitted because of lack of intent
to kill, coupled with mistake
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill (and his
father Marvin Hill w/ whom he was living and getting subsistence
CFI dismissed the case because they entertained the Hills motion to dismiss
o Motion to dimiss was based of the following grounds:
o Present action is a violation of Sec 1, Rule 107 of RROC
o Barred by res judicata
o Complaint had no cause of action against Marvin Hill, because he isnt Reginalds guardian
anymore
Hence, this appeal

BLOCK D 2019 1

Issue:
1) W/N the present civil suit is barred by Reginalds acquittal in the criminal case -- NO

2) W/N the principle of quasi-delicts (Art. 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code) are applicable in
the instant case
Holding:
1) NO. REGINALD IS STILL LIABLE. The acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not
extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action
against him.
Fault/negligence as a source of obligation has a dual character: civil and criminal.
An aggrieved party in a criminal case can avail of either civil indemnity through the civil liability
that comes with a criminal action OR indemnity in a separate civil action under the Civil Code
provisions on quasi-delict.
Justice Bocobos treatise on the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa
criminal or delito and mere culpa (fault):
o The same act of negligence can be a proper subject matter either of
(1) a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime OR
(2) an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence
under article 1902 of the Civil Code
o In this jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana,
under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a
negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a
criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued for this
civil liability arising from his crime.
o The Revised Penal Code in articles 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple
negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to
fault or negligence not punished by law, accordingly to the literal import of article 1093
of the Civil Code, the legal institution ofculpa aquiliana would have very little scope and
application in actual life.
o To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the
defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which
can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of
evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil
action under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code.
o Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligencia covers not only acts "not
punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent

BLOCK D 2019 2

2) NO. Reginalds emancipation by marriage DOES NOT clear his father of ALL criminal liability.
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327,
Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the marriage of the minor
(child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the
minor is not really full or absolute.
Reginald was STILL subservient to and DEPENDENT on his father; his father is still
responsible for him, therefore, Article 2180 of the Civil Code can apply.
o Art. 2180: "(T)he obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible. The father
and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company."
"(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over
the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of
age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of
his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of
his father, mother or guardian."
Articl
Order appealed from is REVERSED.
Other Opinions:
N/A

BLOCK D 2019 3