V

PROSEcui1~ER III 121

N OF CIVIL ACT
CRule 111) ION
exist (Sec. 2, Rule 111 R z
" lict may, howev~r ~ e~ of Court). The civil action based,(! )
o"'~
finding on the final jud' e e~med extinguishea if there is a 'L./
act or omission from wh~ e; t I~ t~e.criminal action that the
exist (Hun Hy ung Park IC E e CIVIi liability may arise did not
February 12, 2007). v. ung Wong Choi, G.R . No . 165496,

--» 2. In case of acquitt 1

r adjudged ~ivilly liable The ~,
.
t~e accused may~
/2t.,-i lD
be ~
-

t carry with it th · t. ~xtinctwn of the penal act10n does

no ·tt . b d e ex Inction of the civil action where ( ~e
ac_gu~ a 1 IS . ase ?n reasona le doubt as only preponderance
.Jbp of eVIdence IS re~uired; (b the court de lares that the liability
n of the accused IS o~y civiJ; and cef(he civil liability of the
I accus~d does (!§Y anse fr~ or is not based upon the crime
of whic~ the accused was acquitted. The civil liability is not
extinguished by acquittal where such acquittal is based on lack
of ?roof b~yond ~eas~na~le doubt, since only preponderance of
eVIdence IS required 1n civil cases (Ching v. N icdao, 522 SCRA
316, April 27, 2007; Bax v. People, 532 SCRA 284, September
5, 2007).
3. Similarly, it was again held that when the trial court ·
acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of lack
of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since
liability under such an action can be determined based on
mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel
off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the
implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability (Heirs of Sarah
Marie Palma Burgos, G.R. No 169711, February 8, 2010).
~ ~ Thus, unde~ Section 2 of ~ule 120, of the Rul~s of
XJ Court, a ial court, 1n case of acquittal of an accused, 1s to
stat whether the prosecution ab~olutely failed to prov◄e his
(accused) g1.!ilt/4r)nerely failed to prove h~s guilt be ond
reasonable& i l ~nd in either case, it shall determin 1 h e
act or omission from' which the civil liability might arise did
~ t exist. If after a perusal of the decisio~ o~ the trial co~rt
It shows that it found that the acts or om1ss1ons from which
the civil liability of respondents might arise did not exist,