You are on page 1of 10

after the death of the first wife and before the

People vs Aragon third marriage was entered into. Hence, the last
marriage was a valid one and appellant's
February 28, 1957 prosecution for contracting this marriage can not
G.R. No. L-10016 prosper.
FACTS: For the foregoing considerations, the judgment
appealed from is hereby reversed and the
Herein accused under the name Proceso Rosima defendant-appellant acquitted, with costs de
contracted a marriage to one Maria Gorrea in the oficio, without prejudice to his prosecution for
Philippine Independent Church in Cebu while he having contracted the second bigamous
is still married to Maria Gorrea. Yet again, the marriage. So ordered.
accused now under the name of Proceso Aragon
contracted another a canonical marriage with
Maria Faicol.

This was put into possibility because the accused People vs. Aragon
was then a traveling sales man. When Maria 100 Phil 1033
Gorrea died, and seeing that the coast was dear
in Cebu, Aragon brought Faicol to Cebu from FACTS:
Iloilo, where she became a teacher-nurse. Maria
Faicol however, suffered injuries to her eyes Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with
because of physical maltreatment brought to her Gorrea. While his marriage with the latter
by Aragon. Due to the injuries she was sent to subsist, he contracted a canonical marriage with
Iloilo to undergo treatment, in her absence the Faicol. Gorrea is staying in Cebu while Faicol is
accused contracted a third marriage with a in Iloilo. He was a traveling salesman thus, he
certain Jesusa C. Maglasang. commuted between Iloilo and Cebu. When
Gorrea died, he brought Faicol to Cebu where the
He then categorically denied in the court his latter worked as teacher-nurse. She later on
marriage to Maria Faicol but affirmed his suffered injuries in her eyes caused by physical
marriage to Maglasang. maltreatment of Rosima and was sent to Iloilo to
undergo treatment. While she was in Iloilo,
The Court of First Instance of Cebu held that Rosima contracted a third marriage with
even in the absence of an express provision in Maglasang. CFI-Cebu found him guilty of bigamy.
Act No. 3613 authorizing the filing of an action
for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage ISSUE: Whether or not the third marriage is null
void ab initio, defendant could not legally and void.
contract marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasang
without the dissolution of his marriage to Maria HELD:
Faicol, either by the death of the latter or by the
judicial declaration of the nullity of such The action was instituted upon the complaint of
marriage, at the instance of the latter. the second wife whose marriage with Rosima
was not renewed after the death of the first wife
ISSUE: and before the third marriage was entered
Whethe or not accused is guilty of bigamy? into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one
and prosecution against Rosima for contracting
HELD: marriage cannot prosper.

It is to be noted that the action was instituted


upon complaint of the second wife, whose
marriage with the appellant was not renewed
COJUANGCO V CA that, by not paying the winnings, Carrascoso had
acted in bad faith amounting to the persecution
and harassment of petitioner and his family.
28AUG
While the case was pending with the CA, the
GR No. 119398 | July 2, 1999 | J. Panganiban petitioner moved for partial execution pending
Doctrine: To hold public officers personally appeal to which the private respondents posed
liable for moral and exemplary damages and for no objection to.
attorneys fees for acts done in the performance CA reversed the trial courts finding of bad faith,
of official functions, the plaintiff must prove that holding that the former PCSO chairman was
these officers exhibited acts characterized by merely carrying out the instruction of the PCGG.
evident bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. It likewise noted that Carrascosos acts of
But even if their acts had not been so tainted, promptly replying to demands and not objecting
public officers may still be held liable for to partial execution negated bad faith.
nominal damages if they had violated the
plaintiffs constitutional rights.
Facts: Issue:
Petitioner Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. filed a Petition W/N the award for damages against respondent
for Review under Rule 45 of the ROC seeking to Carrascoso is warranted by evidence the law
set aside CAs decision, after it reversed a
favorable decision of the RTC that ordered the
private respondents to pay him moral and
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of Held:
the suit, and denied his Motion for YES AND NO. Petitioner is only entitled to
Reconsideration. nominal damages.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment
Cojuangco, a known businessman-sportsman or simple negligence. It imports a dishonest
owned several racehorses which he entered in purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
sweepstakes races. Several of his horses won the doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty due
races on various dates, and won prizes together to some motive or interest of ill will that
with the 30% due for trainer/grooms. He sent partakes of the nature of fraud. There is
letters of demand for the collection of the prizes sufficient evidence on record to support
due him but private respondents PCSO and its Respondent Courts conclusion that Carrascoso
then chairman Fernando Carrascoso Jr. did not act in bad faith. His letters to PCGG
consistently replied that the demanded prizes indicated his uncertainties as to the extent of the
are being withheld on advice of PCGG. sequestration against the properties of the
Consequently, Cojuangco filed this case before plaintiff. There is also denying that plaintiff is a
the Manila RTC but before the receipt summons, very close political and business associate of the
PCGG advised private respondents that it poses former President Marcos. Sequestration was also
no more objection to its remittance of the prized a novel remedy. Under these equivocalities,
winnings. This was immediately communicated Carrascoso could not be faulted in asking further
to petitioners counsel Estelito Mendoza by instructions from the PCGG, on what to do and
Carrascoso but the former refused to accept the more so, to obey the instructions given. Besides,
prizes at this point, reasoning that the matter EO2 has just been issued by President Aquino,
had already been brought to court. freezing all assets and properties in the
Philippines (of) former President Marcos and/or
The trial court ruled that the private his wifetheir close friends, subordinates,
respondents had no authority to withhold the business associates
subject racehorse winnings since no writ of
sequestration was issued by PCGG. Ordering the The extant rule is that public officers shall not be
private respondents to pay in solidum the liable by way of moral and exemplary damages
claimed winnings, the trial court further held for acts done in the performance of official
duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad been violated or invaded by the defendant, for
faith, malice or gross negligence. Attorneys fees the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that
and expenses of litigation cannot be imposed right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any
either, in the absence of clear showing of any of loss suffered.
the grounds provided therefor under the Civil
Code. The trial courts award of these kinds of
damages must perforce be deleted.

Nevertheless, this Court agrees with the


petitioner and the trial that Respondent
Carrascoso may still be held liable under Article
32 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any


private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstruct, 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:

xxx xxx xxx

(6) The rights against deprivation of property


without due process of law;

Under the aforecited article, it is not necessary


that the public officer acted with malice or bad
faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a
violation of the constitutional rights of
petitioner, even on the pretext of justifiable
motives or good faith in the performance of ones
duties.

We hold that petitioners right to the use of his


property was unduly impeded. While
Respondent Carrascoso may have relied upon
the PCGGs instructions, he could have further
sought the specific legal basis therefor. A little
exercise of prudence would have disclosed that
there was no writ issued specifically for the
sequestration of the racehorse winnings of
petitioner. There was apparently no record of
any such writ covering his racehorses either. The
issuance of a sequestration order requires the
showing of a prima facie case and due regard for
the requirements of due process. The
withholding of the prize winnings of petitioner
without a properly issued sequestration order
clearly spoke of a violation of his property rights
without due process of law.
Art. 2221 of the Civil Code authorizes the award
of nominal damages to a plaintiff whose right has
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. under Article 32(6) which states rights against
COURT OF APPEALS, THE PHILIPPINE deprivation of property without due process of
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE law. There was a violation of Cojuangcos
and FERNANDO O. CARRASCOSO, JR., constitutional right even if done in good faith
respondents. since no writ for the sequestration of his
G.R. No. 119398. July 2, 1999 racehorse winnings. Therefore, Cojuangcos
petition was granted and Carrasco is obliged to
FACTS: pay nominal damages worth P/ 50,000.00.

Eduardo Cojuangco, a businessman and a


sportsman, was the owner of several racehorces,
which he entered in the sweepstakes races from
March 6, 1986 to September 18, 1989. The said
racehorses won first, second and third places
which granted Cojuangco with prizes from PCSO.
Cojuangco sent PCSO demand letters claiming
the prizes but Carracoso replied stating that he
was advised by the PCGG to withhold the prizes
in the mean time. The RTC held that PCSO and
Carrascoso had no authority to withhold the
winnings since no writ of sequestration
was issued by the PCGG. The trial court also said
that Carrascosos initiative of not issuing the
prizes were manifestations of Bad Faith.
The Court of Appeals, however, held that
Carrascoso was merely carrying out the
instructions of PCGG backed by the intention to
protect public interest. The appellate court said
that Carrascoso was in good faith since he
replied to demand letters, he released the
winnings upon PCGGs advice nad he had no
objection to the partial execution.

ISSUE:

Whether the award for damages against


Carrascoso is warranted by evidence and the
law.

RULING:

The Court ruled that Carrascoso acted in good


faith. Bad faith, to be recognized by court, should
be constituted by dishonest purpose, moral
obliquity, and consciousdoing of a wrong.
The Court further stated that a
public official shall not be liable by way of moral
and exemplary damages for acts done in the
performance of their official duties unless there
is no clear showing of bad faith, malice and gross
negligence. But Carrascoso should still be liable
239 Phil. 680 (4) months, as minimum to six (6) years, as
maximum of prision correccional; to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased
PARAS, J.: Judge Arsenio G. Solidum, the sum of
P115,723.05, as actual and compensatory
Illustre Cabiliza was charged before the Regional
damages; P1,447,200.00 for the loss of earning
Trial Court of the 5th Judicial Region, Branch
capacity of the deceased; P200,000.00 as moral
II, Legaspi City with homicide and damage to
damages; and P20,000.00 as exemplary
property through reckless imprudence, in an
damages, and to pay the costs." (Rollo, p. 75)
information which reads -
"That on or about the 20th day of September, The aforesaid judgment was promulgated on
1979, in the city of Legaspi, Philippines, and November 9, 1983. On November 11,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, 1983, Cabiliza filed a Notice of Appeal. But he
the above-named accused, being then the driver did not live to pursue his appeal as he died on
of an Izusu dump truck, bearing Plate No. WD- January 5, 1984. A notice of death dated
224 T Philippines "79, belonging to and owned February 4, 1984 was filed by his counsel
by RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTIONS, did then Atty. EustaquioS. Beltran. In the same notice of
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously death, Atty. Beltran manifested the intention
drive, operate and manage the said vehicle in a of Rufo Mauricio, as employer of Cabiliza to
reckless and imprudent manner without taking proceed with the case on appeal pursuant to his
the necessary precaution to prevent and/or right as employer who is subsidiarily liable.
avoid accident to persons and/or damage to On March 5, 1984, the lower court issued an
property, and without regard to traffic rules and Order requiring the heirs of Cabiliza to appear
regulations, causing as a result of his and to substitute him as appellant with respect
carelessness and imprudence the said vehicle to the civil aspect of the case.
that he was driving to sideswipe and hit a Colt
Gallant with Plate No. AC-206 S Pilipinas "79, On motion of the heirs of the victim, the lower
driven and owned by the late JUDGE ARSENIO court in its order dated August 23, 1984 ordered
SOLIDUM, thereby inflicting injuries upon the the issuance of a writ of execution and
said Judge ArsenioSolidum which directly caused accordingly on the same date, the Branch Clerk
his untimely death, and further causing damage of Court issued a writ.
to the said Colt Gallant in the amount of Thirty The writ of execution was however returned
Thousand (P30,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Cur- unsatisfied per Sheriff's return of service dated
rency, to the damage and prejudice of the late September 3, 1984, because Cabiliza was found
Judge Arsenio Solidum and/or his family, and insolvent. A certificate of insolvency was issued
likewise causing damage to the house owned by by the Register of Deeds of the Province
PABLO NAVARRA, to the damage and prejudice of Cagayan and by the Municipal Assessor
of the said PabloNavarra. of Claveria, Cagayan where Cabiliza appears to
be a permanent resident.
"CONTRARY TO LAW." (Rollo, pp. 74-75)
On September 3, 1984, the victim's widow, Mrs.
After arraignment and trial on the Aurora Solidum, filed a motion for the issuance
merits, Cabiliza was convicted of the crime of a subsidiary writ of execution to be enforced
charged in a Decision dated October 12, 1983, against the employer of Cabiliza, Rufo Mauricio
the dispositiveportion of which reads - and/or Rufo Mauricio Construction Co., which
"WHEREFORE, this Court finds was granted by the court in its order dated
accused Illustre Cabiliza guilty beyond September 6, 1984. A subsidiary writ of
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and execution was issued by the Clerk of Court also
damage to property thru reckless imprudence on September 6, 1984.
and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four
On September 12, 1984, Rufo Mauricio thru his On April 8, 1986, the Intermediate Appellate
counsel Atty. Beltran filed a motion to quash the Court promulgated its now assailed
subsidiary writ of execution. Resolution of this Decision,[1] the pertinent portion of which reads -
motion was held in abeyance.
"We find that the proper amount of damages for
Meanwhile, Rufo Mauricio, as the employer loss of earnings based on life expectancy of the
of Cabiliza pursued the latter's appeal before the deceased is P1,082,223.84. In this respect, the
Intermediate Appellate Court (AC-G.R. No. trial court's finding is modified. The Judgment
01829). He interposed the following assignment appealed from is affirmed in all other aspects.
of errors -
"WHEREFORE, with the afore-mentioned
I modifications, the appealed Judgment is AF-
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING FIRMED." (Rollo, p. 86)
THAT THE ACCUSED WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT Rufo Mauricio filed a motion for reconsideration
AND IMPRUDENT IN TRYING TO OVERTAKE which was denied for lack of merit in the
ANOTHER TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN Resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court
ONCOMING CAR FROM THE OPPOSITE DIREC- dated July 18, 1986.
TION;
The said Decision and Resolution are the subject
II of the present petition. Petitioner contends that
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT -
CONCLUDING THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF "1. The dismissal of the criminal case against
THE COLLISION RESULTING IN DEATH OF the accused employee wipes out not only the
JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM AND DAMAGE TO HIS employee's primary civil liability, but also his
CAR, WAS DUE TO THE LATTER'S GROSS employer's subsidiary liability for such criminal
NEGLIGENCE AND IMPRUDENCE IN INVADING negligence, because:
THE PROPER LANE OF THE ISUZU DUMP TRUCK
OWNED BY RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTION; 'a. The criminal case is based on Article 100 of
the revised Penal Code wherein criminal liability
III and the exemption of criminal liability implies
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AWARDING THE exemption from civil liability arising from crime.
TOTAL OF P1,782,923.05 DAMAGES IN FAVOR 'b. The civil liability of the employer petitioner
OF THE COMPLAINANTS; is based, if any, on quasi delict, since the accused
was exempted from criminal liability.
IV
"2. Exemplary damages cannot be imposed
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING
upon an employer who at the time of the alleged
THE INFORMATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
incident was not present nor inside the vehicle
UPON PROOF OF HIS DEATH AND IN NOT
involved in the accident.
RELEASING THE EMPLOYER RUFO MAURICIO
CONSTRUCTIONS AND/OR RUFO MAURICIO "3. The petitioner employer cannot be
FROM LIABILITY; condemned (to pay) an exhorbitant amount of
damages to the tune of P1,417,946.89, without
V
giving him opportunity to cross examine the
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING witness supporting such claim and affording him
APPELLANT RUFO MAURICIO AND/OR RUFO opportunity to adduce evidence to resist the
MAURICIO CONSTRUCTION A DAY IN COURT TO claim, because that would be deprivation of
RESIST THE DAMAGES BEING CLAIMED BY THE property without due process of law repugnant
HEIRS OF THE VICTIM. to the Freedom Constitution.
"4. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate hearing adverted to in the next preceding
Court misapplied the facts contrary to the paragraph.
physical evidence and relied on conjectures and
SO ORDERED.
surmises that depicted a different picture of the
accident when the evidence shows that it was
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
the victim who was negligent at the time of the
Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
accident." (Rollo, pp. 18-19)

The first contention of petitioner that the death


of the accused-employee wipes out not only the
employee's primary civil liability but also his
employer's subsidiary liability is without
merit. The death of the accused during
the pendency of his appeal or before the
judgment of conviction (rendered against him by
the lower court) became final
and executory entinguished his criminal liability
(meaning his obligation to serve the
imprisonment imposed and his pecuniary
liability for fines, but not his civil liability should
the liability or obligation arise (not from a crime,
for here, no crime was committed, the accused
not having been convicted by final judgment, and
therefore still regarded as innocent) but from
a quasi-delict (See Arts. 2176 and 2177, Civil
Code), as in this case. The liability of the
employer here would not be subsidiary
but solidary with his driver (unless said
employer can prove there was no negligence on
his part at all, that is, if he can prove due
diligence in the selection and supervision of his
driver). (See 8th par. of Art. 2180, Art. 2194,
Civil Code; also People vs. Navoa, 132 SCRA 412;
People vs. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558; People
vs. Sandaydiego, 82 SCRA 120).
Inasmuch as the employer (petitioner herein)
was not a party in the criminal case, and to grant
him his day in court for the purpose of cross-
examining the prosecution witnesses on their
testimonies on the driver's alleged negligence
and the amount of damages to which the heirs of
the victim are entitled, as well as to introduce
any evidence or witnesses he may care to
present in his defense, the hearing on the motion
to quash the subsidiary writ of execution must
be reopened precisely for the purpose adverted
to hereinabove.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed decision
of the appellate court is hereby SET ASIDE, and
this case is REMANDED to the trial court for the
YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND LARRY the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the
SALVADO, petitioner, same act or omission of the accused. The
vs. purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to
COURT OF APPEALS, WENCESLAO M. POLO, in prevent the offended party from recovering
his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 19 of the damages twice for the same act or omission.
RTC of Manila, and ROY CAMASO, respondents.
Tomas R. Leonidas for petitioners. Although the separate civil action filed in this
David B. Agoncillo for private respondent. case was without previous reservation in the
Ponente: GANCAYCO criminal case, nevertheless since it was
FACTS: instituted before the prosecution presented
Petitioner was charged with the crime of evidence in the criminal action, and the judge
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical handling the criminal case was informed thereof,
injuries. Later, a complaint for damages was filed then the actual filing of the civil action is even far
by respondent represented by his father, against better than a compliance with the requirement
petitioners in the Regional Trial Court. Trial of an express reservation that should be made by
court rendered decision awarding damages to the offended party before the prosecution
respondents. Petitioners appealed on the presents its evidence.
thesis that the civil action for damages for
injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence Procedural laws have retroactive application.
of Salvado, being without malice, cannot be filed
independently of the criminal action under
Article 33 of the Civil Code. Further, it is
contended that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure such a
separate civil action may not be filed unless
reservation thereof is expressly made. The
appeal was dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a civil action instituted after the
criminal action was filed, before presentation of
evidence by the prosecution, would prosper even
if there was no reservation to file a separate civil
action.

HELD:
YES. Petition was denied. Decision of the Court of
Appeals was affirmed.

RATIO:
[T]he civil action for the recovery of civil liability
is impliedly instituted with the criminal action
unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves his right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action. Such civil action includes recovery of
indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and
damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND SALVADO vs. CA et SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
al When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
G.R. No. 91856 action for the recovery of civil liability is
October 5, 1990 impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
GANCAYCO, J.: unless the offended party:
FACTS: a five-year old boy, Roy Camaso, while 1. waives the civil action
standing on the sidewalk of M. de la Fuente 2. reserves his right to institute it separately, or
Street, Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by a 3. institutes the civil action prior to the
Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines criminal action.
and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado. xxx
Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes
in an information that was filed with the then
the others. The institution of, or the reservation
City Court of Manila. Later on, a complaint for
of the right to file, any of said civil actions
damages was filed by Roy Camaso represented
separately waives the others.
by his father, David Camaso, against Yakult
Philippines and Larry Salvado in the RTC of
Manila. xx

In due course a decision was rendered in the civil The reservation of the right to institute the
case ordering defendants to pay jointly and separate civil actions shall be made before the
severally the plaintiff for actual expenses for prosecution starts to present its evidence and
medical services and hospital bills, attorneys under circumstances affording the offended
fees and the costs of the suit. Although said party a reasonable opportunity to make such
defendants appealed the judgment, they reservation.
nevertheless filed a petition for certiorari in the
CA challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court Although the incident in question and the actions
over said civil case. arising therefrom were instituted before the
Petitioners thesis is that the civil action for promulgation of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
damages for injuries arising from alleged Procedure, its provisions which are procedural
criminal negligence of Salvado, being without may apply retrospectively to the present case.
malice, cannot be filed independently of the
criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code.
Further, it is contended that under Section 1, In this case, the offended party has not waived
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal the civil action, nor reserved the right to institute
Procedure such a separate civil action may not it separately. Neither has the offended party
be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly instituted the civil action prior to the criminal
made. action. However, the civil action in this case was
filed in court before the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution in the criminal
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. A action of which the judge presiding on the
motion for reconsideration thereof filed by criminal case was duly informed, so that in the
petitioners was denied. Hence this petition. disposition of the criminal action no damages
ISSUE: Can a civil action instituted after the was awarded.
criminal action was filed prosper even if there The civil liability sought arising from the act or
was no reservation to file a separate civil action? omission of the accused in this case is a quasi
HELD: the petition is DENIED. The questioned delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil
decisions of the CA are hereby AFFIRMED Code as follows:
YES ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal damage to another, there being fault or
Procedure provides as follows:
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage of the right to file, any of said civil actions
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- separately waives the others.
existing contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
The reservation of the right to institute the
provisions of this Chapter.
separate civil actions shall be made before the
The aforecited revised rule requiring such
prosecution starts to present its evidence and
previous reservation also covers quasi-
under circumstances affording the offended
delict as defined under Article 2176 of the
party a reasonable opportunity to make such
Civil Code arising from the same act or reservation.
omission of the accused.
Although the separate civil action filed in this
case was without previous reservation in the In no case may the offended party recover
criminal case, nevertheless since it was damages twice for the same act or omission of
instituted before the prosecution presented the accused.
evidence in the criminal action, and the judge
handling the criminal case was informed When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is liability against the accused by way of moral,
even far better than a compliance with the nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
requirement of an express reservation that filing fees for such civil action as provided in
should be made by the offended party before the these Rules shall constitute a first lien on the
prosecution presents its evidence. judgment except in an award for actual damages.
The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is
to prevent the offended party from recovering
damages twice for the same act or omission. In cases wherein the amount of damages, other
than actual, is alleged in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall
Thus, the Court finds and so holds that the trial be paid by the offended party upon the filing
court had jurisdiction over the separate civil thereof in court for trial. (1a)
action brought before it.

NOTES:
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure (complete)

SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.


When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves his right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
under the Revised Penal Code, and damages
under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines arising from the same act
or omission of the accused.

A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes


the others. The institution of, or the reservation