l PR RULEUI

OSECU'fJON OF CIVIL ACTION

111

Where the amount of d

complaint or information thamages, other than actual, is specified in the
the offended party upon ;h ~.orrespondin g filing fees shall be paid by
~ e mg thereof in court.
RULE 111 ~ as otherwise provided . th
required for actual damages. m ese Rules, no filing fees shall be
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
~ cgunterclaim, cro~ Iaim or h' . .
by t~ ccused in the cri 'al t ~ Party complamt may be filed
1. Institution of the Civil Action with the Criminal Action have been the subject thmm f case, bu! :t°Y cause of action which could
ereo may be litigated in a separate civil action.
2. Filing Fees in Criminal Cases (b) The criminal action f , 1 •
shall be deemed to . l d h or v10 ation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22
• No reservation
· ii action. .
3. Prohibited Pleadings in Criminal Cases . . m. e u e t e correspon ding c1v
to fil e sueh civil action separately shall be allowed.
4. Primacy of the Criminal Action
Upon filing of the aforesai ·1oin riminal and civil actions the
5. Acquittal based on the amount ;f the
offen~ed party shal_l a in fu
No Double Jeopardy When Acquittal is Void be considered as the • d.
actual damagescIaime
6. check mvolved,
h . shall
which . .
Where t e complaint or information also seeks to recover lj_quidated
7. Independent Civil Actions
m9fal, noJRin.~, wnperate ~r,,.exemplary damages, the offended pm;
8. Death of the Accused shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. ff
9. Substitution by Reason of Death in Criminal and Civil Cases the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall
10. Prejudicial Question constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed ~ ar~§ , and trial thereof
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civilactions. - (a) When a criminal has not yet commenced, it may be consolida e with the criminal action
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability upon application with the court trying the latter case. ff the application is
arising from the offense -ch arged shall be deemed instituted with the granted, the trial of both actions shall proce~d in accordance with section
criminal action~ the offended party w~es the civil action, r~ rves 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
the right to instlfiiteit separately or instit_,tes the civil action prior to the
criminal action. I NSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL A CTION WITH THE CRIMINAL A CTION

The res£rvation of the right to institute separately the civil action
shall be made be.!_ore the prosecution starts presenting its evidence
and under circumstance s affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
ac~sed by ~a~ of moral, nominal, te':°perate, or exemplary damages
wtthout specifymg the amount thereof m the complaint or information
the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgmen;
awarding such damages.
When a criminal action is instituted, the.civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall ~ deemed_u:15ti~ted
w ith the criminal action, ~ the offended p,rty~ ve3 the c1VII action,
~ erves the right to institiile'itseparately or ~ titutes the civil action P:ior
to the criminal action . In such a case, civil liability arising from the cnme
may be determined in the criminal proceedings, where '(ivid~nce should
be taken of the damages claimed and the court should detenrune who are
the persons entitled to such indemniti } . . . .
l
,'-at is deemed instituted with the crurunal action 1s
· or ex-dez·zcto.
U nd er .this ruIe, v.c1, . ,. !'ability arising from the cnme

110
only. th e action to recover ci, 11
1 .

Lee v. Lee, G.R. No. 181658, 07 August 2013.

'
f 112 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
113

. 1 32 33 34 and 2176 of case,6 and an oral manifest ti

lQJ All the other civil actions, sue~ as_ under Artie es ~ fil:d s;parateJy and
the Civil Code are not deemed mstituted , and may
prosecute d independ ently even wit~out any reser_v
.
a!~
0
~
. the criminal
e actions are
reflected in the court recordsa7 ~n, t:ough counsel, of reservation duly
party is also deemed..to h ' as t e effect of reservation. The offended
civil action before filing th av~ m~de su~h reservatio n if he files a separate
I action "since they are not deemed included ·therein.
' . . . ,, f
es. . b d
· al prosecuti on
hi h
ase on
•d
that th.e institution of
9
e cnmm~ _acho_n. In ~act, jurisprudence has held
,, even far better" com al~arat~ e1V1! acho~ pnor to the criminal action. is
"separate, distinct and independ ent o any cnmm
the same act,3 consisten t-with Article 31 of the Civil Code~ . c provi es P e with the requirement of express reservation:
the
that C hen the civil action "js b~s.e d on an obligation not ansmg from . Althoug~ the separate civil actiori filed in this ca~ was
· h · ·1 ti may proceed
act orE omission complain ed of as a felony, sue c1v1 ac on ~ 1th0.ut pre~ious reservation in the criminal case nevertheless
gs and regardless of the result of since '
1t w. a~ institu ~ed before the prosecution presented evidence
indepens!fntly of the criminal proceedin .
the latteg T h e ~ of these 'separate, distinct, and independ ent' m th~ cnmmal act10n, and the judge handling the criminal case
civil actions are enumerat ed in jurisprude nce: ~as informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action
1s even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an
1. The right to bring the.foregoing actions based on the express reservation_that should be made by the· offended party
Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecuti on, before the prosecution presents its evidence.9
since they are not deemed included therein.
2. The institutio n or the waiver of the right to file a
Th~ of this reservation according to jurisprudence, is that(:once I l
separate civil action arising from the crime charged does..)cn ot
the offended party has reserved his right to institute a separate civil action
to.recover.indemnity, he thereby.Joses his standin in the criminal case, that
I l
extinguish the right to bring such action.
r 3. The only limitation is that the offended party gyfuQ!
is, his right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case, including
the right to move for the reconsideration or appeal of the cnminal case
I
5
insofar as civil liability is concemed." Moreover, by this reservation, the
10 I
r ~ r more than once for the same act or omission.
I

offended party cannot institute the separate civil action arising therefrom I
In the event that there is no independ ent, separate and distinct civil untiLfinal judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.U I
action under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code which was
instituted , the recovery of the civil aspect will remain in the criminal action. The "practic3r·reasoi'f for requiring the reservation of the· right to If
bring an action separately '' is to avoid thefiling of more than one action for
12
Reservation the same act or omission against the same party."
Under the rules, the offended party is given the option to file a No Reservation in Batas Pambansa Big. 22 Cases
separate civil action t o ~ civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such
nght. The reservatio n of the right to institute separately the civil action shall A violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 can give rise to civil liability, as
be made before the prosecuti on starts presentin g its eviden~~ and under "payee of the check is entitled to receive the payment of mon~y for which
the worthless check was issued." The Rules h o w e v e r ~~e
13
circumsta nces affording the offended party a reasonabl e opportun ity to
make such reservatio n. civil as~t of a Batas..Pambansa Big. ~ case shallthbe _d~l m~d inclu et ml
the criminal action, and that no reservation to file e OYI action separa e y ...
~eserva~ on.may be ~ad~ o r ~ " ) . Case law has held that ==-- --
the filing of A Reservati on t ~Separ'ate---Civil Action" in a criminal
l . Herrera G.R. No. L-32055, 26 February 1988.
Bennudez, Sr. v._Me encze>- _' 29 December
1967.
- Tactaquin v. Palrleo, G.R. No.0 \ :' 26 August 2002.
Neplum v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002; Casupanan v. Larrn,a
--·
GR N 145391
-:r ' • · o. , Casupana~ ~-Laroya, ?Ri ~, OS
Appeals G.R. No. 91856, October 1990.
26 August 2002. Ya/cult Ph1l1pp1nes v. our~?0 L-20865, 29 December 1967.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703 14 A ril 2004 10 Tactaquin v. Pal1leo, G.R. · . 2 .
Civil Code, Article 31.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No
'
147703
Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002; Casupanan v Laroya, GR
·
14
p
A 'I
·

Npn 2004; Neplum v.

· · o. 145391,26August
II
12
13
Maniago v. Court 0/A~:,rci~n
Rules of Court, Rule 11l,

Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., G.R. ·

No. 104392, 20 February 1996.
L-7S91l, 11 December 1987.
2002.
r 114 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PROS RULE 111
ECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
115

is allowed.14 Adopted from Circular No. 57-97, this rule was intended to executed by the offended ar . .
15 may have against the for:e ty,rwhich waived whatever rights the latter
"discourage the separate filing<of the civil action," and "to help declog th contrary to law,
court dockets which are filled with Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases as morals, good customs pub/ ru l~g at the same is "not

I
16
' ic po icy or public order." 23
I creditors actually use the courts as collectors."
TherEtJUz only c;€)" instanres)vhen separate proceedings are allowed.
Institution of Civil Action Prior tO the Cnmina/
..
Action)
If the se.e_arate civil action w fil
The first i~_phen.1:he civil action is filed ahead of the Batas_ Pambansa ~l~. criminal action, the civil action ~s . ed bef~re the_commencement of the
22 case. Even then, the Rules encourage-the consolidation of the civil th fil' f h . . . , still pending, will be ~ ende pon
e mg o t e crurunal action til fi al .
and criminal cases.17 The Rules provide that where the civil action has criminal action 24 Thi ~ n Judgment was ren ered in the
been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be to recover liabiiity~dn;!~ ap~ es only ~o the separate civil action filed
consolidated with the criminal action up~ ,.rplication with the court Arti ~ e zc o, an not to mdependenl:'civil actions based
trying the latter case. The second instance li'yv~en the.check is issued on ?n c1es 32, 33, , and'-2176 of the Civil Code, which could proceed
behalf of a corporation. The Court has held that the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 bindependently
f · d regardless of the filing of the criminal acti.on.25 Nevertheless,
case would determine whether or not the signatory had signed the check e ore.Ju _gment on the.merits renderecLin the cLvil action, the same may,
with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, while the civil case against the upon motion of the offended party, be consolidatecLwith the criminal action
in the court trying the criminal action.26 -
corporation would ascertain whether or not the obligation itself is valid and
demandable.18 The litigation of both questions could proceed independently Consolidation
19
and sinutl~eously without being conclusive on one or the other.
E
C~ns?lidati?~ is defined as procedural.device granted to the court
Waiven as an aid m deciding how cases m its docket are to be tried so that the
business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy
The chcil aspect oiacriminal case may be subject of waiver. Where there
while providing justice to the parties. Toward this end, consolidation and a
is an effective waiver, the Supre~e_Court has held that "the pronouncement
single trial of several cases in the court's datj<et or consolidation of issues
was void because the action for recovery of the civil lfability arising from
within those cases are permitted by the rul~ ' 27
the crime has been waived in said criminal action." 20
The term, as recognized by the Supreme Court in the cases of Neri
A_compromise or a waiver of_ the civil aspect of the case, "must be v. Sandiganbayan and Republic-.v. Sandiganbayan, is used in three different
entered into befofe or durfug litigation, never after"final judgment."21
Moreover, "[a] compromise on the. civil aspect of a case is valid even if
it turns out to be unsatisfactory to either or both of the parties."22 The J1) Where all except one of several actions are sta ·
Supreme Court has thus upheld _the validity of a Sinumpaang Salaysay one-is tried, in which case e JU gment in one trial is conclusive
as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is ~ferred
to as such. (quasi consolidation)
14
Heirs of Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547: 23 February 2011; Cheng v. Spouses Sy, G .R.
No. 174238, 07 July 2009; Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Asia Dynamic
Electrix Corporation, G.R. No. 163597, 29 July 2005; Ngov. People, G.R. No. 155815, 14
..95 Where several actions are c~mbined .int~ one,~ose
their separate identity, and become-a single --action m which a
July 2004. - · ... . . .
15
Cheng v. Spouses Sy, G .R. No. 174238, 07 July 2009.
16
Heirs of Simon v. Cha~, G.R. No. 157547, 23 February 2011; Hyatt Industrial Manufactur-
ing Corporation v. Asta Dynam,c E/ectrix Corporation, G .R. No. 163597, 29 July 2005 ourt o'First Instance of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-51461, 26 April 1991.
23 DasaIIa, Sr. v. C 'J
17
Spouses Lo ~un Tiong ~- Balboa, _G.R. No._ 158177'. 28 January 2008; Hyatt Indu;trial 24 c
R uIes O O ' Rule
f urt 111, Section 2.
• GR N 256 23 August 2012; Casupa11a11 v. Laroya, G.R. No.
Mllnufactunng Corporation v. Asia Dynam,c Electrix Corporation G R N 163597 29 2S Lim v. Kou Co Pmg, · · o. 175 '
July 2005. ' · · o. ,
2
145391, 26 Augus1200 - Section 2; Naguiat 11• l,itermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
18
19
Gosiaco v. Oting, G.R. No. 173807, 16 April 2009. ,. Rules of Court, Rule 111'
Gosiaco v. O,ing, G.R. No. 173807, 16 April 2009. 73836, 18 August 1988. N 202243 07 August 2013; Republic v. Sa11diganbayan,
21)
Rafael Reyes Trucki11g Co_rporatio11 v. People, G.R. No. 129029, 03 April 2000. 'O Neri v. Sa11diganbayan, G.R. 0 · '
21
Dasa/la, Sr. v. Court of F~rst Instance ofNueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-51461, 26 A ril 1991 2011 ·
22
G.R. No. 152375, 13 December
Dasalia, Sr. v. Court of First htsta11ce of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-51461, 26 A~ril 1991:
l]'
116 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 111
PROSECI.JTION OF OVILACTION 117

single judgment is rendered, This is illustrated by a situation complaints may not-be filed . . .
. . case for su mfcnmmal cases.33 Therefore, a motion . to
where several actions are pending between the same parties consolid ate a civil mo moneyintheRTc· th s ,.,..____
· ·
stating claims which might have been set out originally in one w h ere a crimmal case for Republ' A m e and1ganbayan,
0
by the Supreme Court for ~ - 3019 was pending, was denied
complaint. (actual consolidation)
I jurisdiction over a case for sp~ .fir,( the Sandiganbayan has no
_¢. Where several actions are.ordered to be.tried together amounted to a counterclaim echi he per ormance, and sewa, the civil case
but each retains its separate character and requires the entry of w c 1s not allo\Yed in criminal cases.34
a separate Judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge -'K As for criminal acti · 1•
.,_ ons mv_o vmg related o~ , Section 22, Rule 119
the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action to of the Rules of Court on consohdation of trials of reIated o ffenses provides.
th t frh f ff
be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial).28 a ~ arges or O enses founded on the same facts or forming part of
a .sene~ of offenses of similar character may also be tried jointly at the
In cri,riunal cases, as provided for by Section_2,_.Rule..1U of the Rules discretion of the court]
of Court, u reviously instituted civil action arising from crime may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon motion of the offen.d.e d party,
~ For ~ases inv~lving the petition for a Writ of Amparo the same.may
be consolidated with the cnrrunal achon if 1Fmvolves the same violation
filed before ~ judgment Of\ the .civil case, and in the court trying the
o.r...threat thereof. Thus, the Rules provide that when a criminal action is
criminal action_::1
filed subsequent to the petition, the petition shall be consolidated with
Consolidation of a crjminal action with a ciw!-'action arising not ex the criminal action.35 Similarly, when a criminal action and a separate civil
delict52, may also be.done, based upon the express authority of Section 1, action are filed subsequent to the petition, the petition shall be consolidated
Rule 31 oLthe.Rules of Court, which pro~jdes that fu-hen actions involving with the criminal action.36 By analogy, a petition for a Writ of--Amparo
a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order cannot be consolidated with a civil case or an administrative case.
a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may
order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning FILING FEES IN CRIMINAL CASES
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delai} 30 Generally, no filing fees are charged for actual damages in criminal
Thus, the Supreme Courtrhas sustained consolidation oL a criminal case cases.37 Thus, the rules provide that except as otherwise provided in these
with a civil case noLarising from the_offense.where the nature of the. issues Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.
involved, at least, the.factuaLissues-in tli.e civila.nd criminal actions are
almostJdentical, the evidence in both_cases likewise would virtually be the Where the civil action is impliedly instituted together with the
same, and will bring no prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.
31 criminal action, the actual damages claimed by the o£t!_n~~d parties are not
included in the computation of the filing fees. Thus, [!_f]iling fees are to be
Howev~r, th~ ~~-nsolidatfon of"a"dvii a~tion not arising. from the paid only if other items of damages such as moral, ~ominal, !emper~te, or
offe~ the criminal ac~o9 for the offer:ise_is ~u~ject to·ilie important exemplary damages are alleged in the co~plaint or ~onnati~; or if they
~ , namely, that ~ e court has Junsd1ction over the cases to are not so alleged, shall constitute a first lien on the 1udgmenty
be consoJidated," 32 and tha~ unterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party

- ---- .- •'A I GR No l16463 10 June 2003; Rules of Court, Rule 111,

33 Republic v. Court o1 ppea s, · · · '
28 Neri v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 202243, 07 August 2013; Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Section l(a), last par. l0 June 2003
G .R. No. 152375, 13 December 2011. 116463
34 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G .R. N: Writ ~f Amparo, ~on 23.
29 Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 2; Naguiat v. Inten11ediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
73836, 18 August 1988.
35 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, The Rule on th: Writ of Amparo, Section 23.
36 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, The Rul~t 157547 23 February 2011; Rodriguez v. Po11ferrada,
3(J
Naguiat v. Jntemiediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73836, 18 August 1988; Ca11os v. Peralta, 37 Heirs of Simon v. Chan, G.R. ~. Hyat; Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Asta
G .R. No. L-38352, 19 August 1982; Cojua11gco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37404, 29 J~y GR 2
G .R. Nos. 155531-34, No. l63597, 29 July 2005.
18 November 1991. Dynamic Electnx Corpomtion, · RNo. 107125, 29 January 2001; People v. Escano, Jr.,
31 Naguiat v. lntennediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73836, 18 Augus t 1988; Canos v. Peralta, 38 Manantan v. Court of Appeals, G. im. General v. Claravall, G.R. No. %724, 22 March
G.R. N o. L-38352, 19 August 1982. G.R. Nos. 78657-60, 07 February ,
32 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116463, 10 June 2003. 1991.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
118
Bl 22 cases is slightly
The rule with respect to ~atas Pamb~ ~ th;·c~ k, considered as
. . fees b d on the amoun - . counterclaim . in a separate 01v
different, as filing ase 'd . full·
actual damages, are_reqwre · d to be P.at tn ·
. . al and civil
Upon, filing of the af oresat.d 1·oint crtmtn
in full the filingJees
actions, the offended party shall P~Y. olved which shall
based on the amount of the chec mv I •m:d Where the
be considered as the _a ctual dam~e: cr::ove; liquidated,
complaint or informatio n also see s o l
moral; ·nominal, temperate or ex~mp ary n the am~unts
damages the
offended party shall pay the filing fees basefi ogecLbut any of
alleged ·therein. If the amounts are not so a ~
t the
these damages are subsequen tly awarded
-filing fees based on the amount aw~rded s . a con
t,J [f
e c:':t~te a
firsHien on the judgment.39 (Emphasis supphed.}
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
The rules provide thatc§) cpont~lai m, -~~claim or tpitd-p arty
complaint may be filed by the accused-IP the criminal case.40
Jurisprudence· has · reasoned -out:.tnat t,.[t]he- countercla~ ~£. t~e
accused cannot be tried together with the criminal case because tt will
unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings."41 . ~us,
the court trying the criminal_case ~ hould confute itself· to the crurunal
aspect and the possible civil liability .of .the .accused arising-out of the
crime."42 Moreover, " [af'court trying a criminal case cannot award damages
in favor of the accused." 43 Therefore, ~ w]here brought ~fore the court
where the criminal, action is institutea, tfie counterclaim (and cross-claim
or tlwd-party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance
without prejudice to· their filing in separate proceedings at the proper
time.44 Toes!!. pr,onouncements are consistent with tnerules p roviding that
any cause of action,whic h could have been the subject of the COWlterclaim,
cross-claim or third-party complaint may be litigated in a separate civil
action.
39
Heirs of Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547, 23 February 2011.
"'41 Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 1.
Cabaero v. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, 18 April 1997.
" Republic v. Court of Appeals, G .R. No. 116463, 10 June 2003; Maccay v. Spouses Nobe/a
G.R. No. 145823, 31 March 2005; Cabaero v. Cantos, G .R. No. 102942 18 A ii
Maccay v. Spouses Nobe/a, G .R. No. 145823, 31 March 2005.
Maccay v. Spouses Nobe/a, G .R. No. 145823 31 March 2005· Rep bl' Co
' pr 1997·
'
1
t,
G.R. No. 116463, 10 June 2003; Cabaero v. Cantos, G.R. No: 102~t ~· Ap;1 1,pea/s,
9
RULElll 119
PROSECUTION OF O VIL ACTION
. Since the_present Rules require the.accused in a criminal action to file
his
· il action,
· th ere can be no forums h opprng
·
if the accused files such separate civil action.45
. Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended. - After the criminal
action has. be~n comme~ced, the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal
action. . __ ...... ... _
~ th~ criminal action is (i.led after the s~ vil action has already
been instituted, the latter shall be suspended ~ atever state it may
be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until
final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Neverthele ss, before
judgment on the mei;:its. ,.:e~d~i:.e ~L~.. the_ciYil action, the same mari
upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the crimjnaJ
action in the court tryiiti the criminal action. In case of consolidat ion,
the ~ enci) already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatic ally reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to
the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by
the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present
additional evidence. The·c-onsolidat ed criminal and civil actions shall be
tried and de~id~d<@nffi).
During the pendency of the criminal action, th~ g period of
prescriptio n of the civil action which cannot ·be ins~ ted separately or
whose proceeding has been suspended· s_!!all be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action doentot carry with it extinction
of the civil action. ~ the civil action based on delict shall b e
deemed extinguis_h ed~ ~ is a finding in a final judgment in the
c_rj._imn~ action that th~ ~ omission from which the civil liability
may arise du! not exist. • .. - - -
PRIMACY OF THE CRIMINAL A CTION
'IJlis rule provides for the primacy of criminal actions over civil acti?n_s
arising from delict.46 Once a criminal action has been commenced, the civil
action.aris ing therefrom cannot be instituted.
A separate.civil action, if reserved in the ~riminal _a c~on, cru:mo~ be
filed until after final judgment was rendered m the cnrrunal action. 7 If
.. Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002. .
46
.,
Sa11 Ildefonso Lines, Inc. v. Javier, G.R. No. 119771, 24 Ap~ l 1998.
San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. v. Javier, G.R. No. 119m , 24 April 1998 .
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULElll
120 121
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
. . . . . from the crime, the same .
court may require the Ja· .
!
there is a previously instituted civ1 action ar;~~he criminal action.
48

. . damages in case the co p I ~nhff to file a bond to answer for

is suspended until final judgment 1s rend ere m . mp amt should be found to be malicious.
. . . olidated with the crmunal If m a criminal case the · d
This s~pended civil action may be cons d the evidence already reasonable doubt th JU gment of acquittal is based upon
action upon motion of the offended party, ~ all reproduced in the any declaration t~ th: court s~ so declare. In the absence of
adduced in the civil action is deemed auto~a c Y s-examine and to the decision wh th t effect, it may be inferred from the text of
consolidated action, without prejudice to the nght to cros e er or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
present additional evidence.
49
Moreover, if there-is . 1
. . .. • · g from the crime cannot court renders judgment- a~qm_tt~ based on reasonable doubt and the
During this period where the c1v11_action ar1sm . . eriod for the the acquittal becaus th ~n t el civil aspect, the prosecutiottcannot appeal
be instituted or is suspended, the rgnnmg of the prescriptive P - f the a wou clput..the:accused in double..jeopardy.' thus'
t h~ ~ or the offended party or tI1e accused, whoever 1s aggrieved
said civil-action is tolled. b tn neiu:'::ztt
Y t e JU rien ' ~ appeal the civil aspect of the case 52 In this regard
ACQUITTAL c~u~ s are a owe~ to rule on the civil aspect of the case de~pite the acquittal
o t e accused, without the need for a separate civil action.SJ
The rules provide that {i;e
extinction of the criminal action does not
@ necessarily carry with jt the extinction of the civil action ansmg_th~reffom, . Furtherm?~e, ~ acquittal in the criminal-action does _not affect the
~ wuess'\here is a finding in the criminal action that the act ?r omiss1~n ~om mdependent.~Lv1~action, as it has a different basis of liability, that is, other
LV w'rucr(the civil liability may arise does-11ot ex!.ill If there 1s such a finding, sources of obligations aside from delict.
then._the civjl action arising ther.efrom is extinguished. .
No DoueLE JEOPARDY W HEN Ac0u1TTAL 1s Vo10
Jurisprudence has enumera t ee instances where an acquittal in
the criminal aspect of the case d s.lnot necessarily extinguish civil liabili . <?ra~e. abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, and Jack
arising from the crime: of Junsd1c~on prevents double jeopardy from attaching.54 [AJn acquittal
is based on reasonable doubt; ~e~de:e~ m grave abuse of..discretion amounting to lack or excess of
) where the @ Jurisdiction does..not really 'acquit' and therefore does not terminate the
(b) where the court e,pressly declares that the liability of case as ther.e can be no double jeopardy based on a void indictment.
55

the.accused is not criminal but only ~ in nature; and Considering that the acquittal is v~ici, ·the ~ available-to the
(c) where the sivil liability is not derived from or based on State isaPetition for Certiorari. ·
50
the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.
is"t~ institute Section 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases
the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the ~
the · · , for the same provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
acivilaction.Jor damages under Affic e 29 of
which requires not roof beyond ·reasonable doubt, but the independe nt civil action may be brought by the offended party. It
act or omission,
shall,,,ptoceed independen tly of the criminal action and shall..require
o.!lly a preponderance of evidence:5
only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended
Art. 29. When..the..-as msed in a crimin;.i prosecution is - l L7 1,k 1\-.i ,!l,, t,. lMJ ,.._ ~c,/( 1 "t,;i'ld
cquitte on the ground thatJiis guilt has...not been proved l-7 c;i,;/
reasona ~ i action for damagesio r.the same -----
52
-
Ching v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, 27 April 2007, citi11g Salazarv. People, G.R. No. 151931,
act or omission may b instituted. Such action requires only a 23 September 2003. .
preponderance of_ evi ence. Upon motion of the defendant, the 53 Romero v. People, G.R. No. 167546, 17 July 2009; Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-39999 31 May 1984; People v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-57555, 28 August 1984; Maximo
v. Garu;hi, G.R. Nos. L-47994-97, 24 September 1986; Vizconde v. bltemzediate Appellate
.. Court, G.R. No. L-74231, IO April 1987; People v. Ligon, G.R. No. L-74041, 29 July 1987.
49

50
Casupanan v. lAroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002.
Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 5.
Oiing v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, 27 April 2007, citing Saperia v. Court of A I GR
( 54

ss
Javier v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 193150, 23 January 2017, citing Villareal v. People, G.R. No.
151258 01 February 2012.
Javier ;_ Gonzales, G.R. No. 193150, 23 January 2017, citing People v. Hernandez, G.R.
No. 128927, 14 September 1999; Salazar v. Peqple, G.R. No. 151931 23 Se pp: s, · ·
51
See also Ching v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 141181, 27 April 2007. , ptem r 2003. Nos 154218/154372, 28 August 2006. )
-:>·~r-1
(!f- 1,,,1rJAt.. rl.~ r,,-,-lah, i 'l<-vt- ( v-! M<"'i W -/c,.;"""8
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULElll
122 123
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
·ssion charged in the
x . f th ame act or om• (l3) The right to t k .
party recover damages twtce or e s petition the go a e part m a peaceable assembly to
criminal action. vernment for redress of grievances;
4
form? ) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS . b d
. .1 actions are actions ase (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
As defined by the rules, 'indepen~ent_civ)\ (Defamation, fraud and
3 (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and
on Articles 32 (v'.iolation of rights and hb~hes , . . a o tee o
f -1 Of ci or muruc1
physical injuries), 34 (Refusal or at ure • d r t) of the Civil Code, filed co~el, t~ be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
a person in.case of dan ger), and 2176 ((?uaSJ- e t ti !OS shall proceed a~amst him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
by the offended party.56 The.rules proV1de that t .ese._~ o the quantum of witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
independently of the criminal action-.md require o Y_ . f th c· ·1 the attendance of witness in his behalf;
'd Th ertinent prov1s10ns o e iv1
proof of.preponderance-o f ev1 ence. e..p • , (17) Freedom-fro_n\. being compelled to be a witness against
Code ~e a!;, foUow.s; . , ~ lAlH/ltA ?ne s self, or from bemg forced to confess guilt, or from being
1/i)bt,r, ert ri~"•· '»- private
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any . induce~ by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeat~, v 10_lates co_n£ess1on, except when the person confessing becomes a State
or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following nghts witness;
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for • (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
damages: punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
(1) Freedom of religion; accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(2) Freedom of speech;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
, In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not
periodical publication; the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense,
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief.
(5) Freedom of suffrage; .. .. .. . ... . ... ... . ... Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a
process of law; preponderance of evidence.
(7) • .-The right to a just compensation when private property •"The indemnity ·shall incl1:1de moral damages. Exemplary
is taken for public use; damages may also be adjudicated.
(8) The right to the equal protection-of the·laws; The responsibility herein set forth is not dernandable from
a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the
(9) The ~ight to be secure in one's person, house, papers, Penal Code or other penal statute.
and effects agarnst unreasonable searches and seizures;
Art.33. lncasesof -am --a-h.,..
·o-n'__.r-a-u--;d~, '"'
a dp€ ic~lfr~jur~
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; a civil action for damages, entire y separate and distmc m e
criminal action, may be brought by the inj~ d _party. Such ~ivil
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; action shall proceed independently of the cnmmal prosecution,
(12) The right to become a member of associations or and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
societies for purposes not contrary to law;
~ ~ en a member of a city or municipal police force
56
Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002 _
~®1t~ render aid or protection to any person in case
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 111 125
124 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

officer shall be primaril y No Need for Reseroation •'R .h

of danger to life or prope~ , such pe~c~ ali shall be subsidia rily
°
1 zg t to File Independent Civil Actions
• d shall be .
Unlike the civil action arising from th e cnme, ,, .
liablefo rdamage s, and thec1tyormurucip . ty action in Articles 32 33 34 the independ ent civil
responsible therefor. The civil action ~erem i;:ogruze ponderance 2176
institute d with th ' . '. 1and of the Civil Code is nof'< deemed
indepen dent of any criminal proceedings, ~ a pre offended party ev e cr'.~ ma . action but may be filed separately by the
of evidence shall suffice to support such action. en w1 out reservation."62
oo-1,l.'ct • ·
Art. 2176."W hoever by act or omission ca
uses damage .to
No Double Recovery ·
another, there beinl?'fa uitb negligen , is obliged to pay f~r ~he
The ru!es bar double recqyery of damages from indepen dent civil
damage done. Suchfau lt or neg gene~, if ~here is no pre-e~is ti~g · damages· twice · for
actions' stating tha tthe offend ed party may not recover
contract ual relation between the parties, 1s called a quasi dehct · · th · •
· 1 action. .
the same act or omiss 10n m . e Crlffilila Jurispru dence has _stated
arid ·is governe d by the provisio ns of this Chapter. ,, . . . ,,
actions "is that the offended
that only lurutatio n to the indepen dent civil
These indepen dent civil actions are.the € e~~ to the primacy of
57 party cannot recover more than once for.,the same act or omission." 63
the criminal actjon over the civil action in Section of Rule 111.
The indepen dent civil..Jiabilities mention ed are "separat e, distinct, ~ Secti?n 4. Effect of death. on dvil actions. - The ~ of the accused
crime.58
As a result of r~ arrai nt and m the pendenc y of the criminal action
and indepen dent" from eivil liabilitie s arising from arising from the delict. However, the
"[t]he offended partyJn ai pursue . .the civil liabili
this distinct and indepen dent nature, vii action mstitute d under section 3 of this Rule or which
civi l liabilitie s simuftan eousfy o.r._cumu latively; without mdep
the two tY,Pes of enforce liability arising from other sources of
shoppin g, ffe?s pendentin , or p!S judicata. " 59 thereafter is institute
offendin g the mies oajorum gainst thep tate or Ipf{al represen tative of
obligati on may be ntinue
It has also been held that "a civil action based on defamat ion, fraud and the accused after proper substitu tion or against said estate, as the case
physical injuries may be indepen dently institute d pursuan t to Article 33 may be. The heirs of the accused may be substitu ted for the deceased
of the Civil Code, and does not operate as a prejudicial question that will without requirin g the appointm ent of an executor or adminis trator and
60
justify the suspens ion of a criminal case." the court may appoint a guardian ad /item for the minor heirs.
Jurispru dence has enumera ted the following ~ of the The court shall forthwit h order said legal represen tative or
"separat e, distinct, and indepen dent".na ture of i n d e p e ~actions: represen tatives to appear and be .substitu ted within a period of thirty
.,;{. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the. (3fil days from notice.
~ivil Co?e need not be..resen red in the criminal .prosecu tion, A final judgme nt entered in favor of the offende d party shall be
since they are not deemed ~duded therein. enforce d in the manner especially provide d in these rules for prosecuting
cl~s against the ~state of the deceased.
..,Z: The institution_or,..w aiver of the right to file a separate
civil;:action arising from the crime charged ~ not e x ~ If the accused dies ~ e arraignment, the case shall be(cljsmisse<!)
the right to bring such.action . " . without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against
the estate of the deceased.
_ / The only @ital@ ) is that the olferided p arty carinot
recover more than once for.J he same act or_omiss ion. 61
DEATH OF THE ACCUSED

Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended , specifically

57
San lldefonso iines, Inc. v. Javier, G.R. No. 119771 24 April 1998 provide s the effect of death ccused o~ his crin~.!J.=?:l s well as ci~ ,
58
Neplum Inc. v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002. · . bil'ty. Crimina l lia ility is totallv xtin s v!s;1eal:tt of the convict,
,. Iia I I · 1· b·1· th f
L1mv.Kou C0Ping G R No 175256 23 AuGgu 2 · ; and as to ecuniarv pena h , 1a 11ty ere or
12 November 2002· Ca;11pa~an v &I RstN012; Cancro, Jr. v. Isip, G.R. No. 133978, as to the p~
,., · ' · roya, · · o. 145391, 26DAugust 2002.
Consmg, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161075, 15 July 2013· S
55, 21 July 2004; People v. Consi11 Jr G R N 0 148193 , amson v. away, G.R. Nos. 160054- Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002.
G.R. No. L-22237, 31 May 1974.g, ., · · • , 16 January 2003; Rojas v. Peaple, 62

63 Neplum Inc. v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002.

61
Neplllm lllc. v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986 11, July _
2002
r 126 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE111 127
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

j s extinguishe d only when the...death of the offender occurs before final
jud gment. 64
The rules likewise provide for the effect an accused's ~eath may have
on civil ~ctions against him. The dividing line is the arraignme nt of _the
accused:'lf the accused di~ efore rraignmen t, the criminal case aga ins t"
h im is gj_smis~ , wit ou tpreju ice.Jo an y civil action the-offend ~d par
m ay file against the...estate...of the...d eceased.a? if th: acc~se? . dies fte
arraignme nt and while the case is penaing, the._cpmma l ha~1hty an t e
ci~ ability arising from the same is extinguishe d, bu t the independe nt
civil a_ction or actions to enforce.lia bility arising from..other sQY.rces oL
obligation may be continy,e.d after..prop er_substitu tion or against the
II estate, as the case may be. Any judgment against the estate may be
I enforced pursuant to Rule 86 of the Rules of Court while the rest of the
I judgment will be executed under Rule 39 if the proper substitutio n has
taken place.
The rules governing the effect of death of the accused before final
judgment are succinctly stated in the oft-cited case of People v. Bayotas:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguish es his criminal liability as well as the civiUiabil ity
based solelx thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in
this regard, {the death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates hircrimina l liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed , i.e., civil
liabilih1 ex delicto in senso strictior!J
2. Corollarily, the claim for_ civil liability survives
notwithsta nqing the death._ of accused, i( the same may _aJ~!>
be predic,ited on a source_of obJigation other than delict.
Article 1157 of the_~ivil Code enumerate s these other sources of
ob ligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
the same act or omission:
a) J..aw
b) ~ ntracts
c) .Quasi-con tracts
[...]
d) ,.(Quasi-delicts
3. Where the c:..:1 r b'l' . . .
N umb er2 above an a ti""-1.1,_Ja u ty sury1ves as explained m
,, -5 onf orrecovery therefor ' may be pursued
b u t only by way of ru· . . achon
. - and- sub1ect
.
I
. mg a separate civil
to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
as ~mended. This ~~ arate civil action m ay be. ~ either
against _the ex~or/a~ ish:ator.or the estate 'onneaccused,
dependmg on the source of obligation upon which the same is
based as explained above.
SUBSTITUTION BY REASON OF D EATH IN CRIMINA L AND C IVIL CASES
This rule provides for substitution in independen t civil aetions or
those-arisi ng from other sources of-obligation where the defendant is also
a n~ ~cuse~ ction 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, on the other hand,
prov1desl6r substitution oL arties in civil case in e . However, it
must be noted t at for all intents and purposes th independent civ.il action
or those.arisi ng from ,9tl}~r.~<?~ces of-obligation--are civil actioni} that is
whtio these irlstances substitutio n is allowed.
Section 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. - A final judgment rendered
in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability ~
to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission
subject of the civil action.
A final judgment in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil
liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same
act or omission that is subject of the civil action.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that the regional trial court's decision
in theieple)li n suit is not a bar to the prosecution of the criminal cas~s for
falsificatio n and grave.coercion "because there is no identity of parties as
the People of the Philippines is not a party in the replevin suit-and cannot
be bound by the factual findings therein." 66 In ~other case, where an
h.ction to recover ownership of a parcel of land filed by the respondent
w~ dismissed due to his repeated failure to appear in the hearing t~er:of,
·t I d that "the court did not and could not have made any findmg
i was rue
of fact that made it impossible thereafter to h oId [th
. _e pe_ti"tioner] I'ta.ble fo r
estafa [and] [c]onsequently, the dismissal of the c1V1l a~tton cannot~ '.111Y
Iegal sense consti·tute a bar .to the. filing
.
and prosecution of the cnmmal
,,
action for estafa against herein petitioner. 67

..
65
Revised Penal Code, Article 89(1). 66
•, A
Madarang v. Court o, pp~a
I G R No 143044, 14 July 2005.
\ -14745,30
March 1% 2.
Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 4. 61 Gorospe v. Nolasco, G.R. 0 ·
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
128
p RULE111 129
• d' · I question - A petition ROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Section 6. Suspension by reason oif pre;u ,cia th
. d f
.
tth a The Supreme Court has cl . .
for suspension of the criminal action based upon - e[ enf;ncy . the. ground of prejudicial f1 ~~e_d that_ m c'.15e of suspension on
prejudicial question in a civil action- may be filed m t ~ ti. ce Who e
0
en is prejudicial to the t· ac ?n [i]t is the.. issue m the civil action that-
• the preliminary investiga on. con muation of the · · I ·
prosecutor or the court cond ucting . . . action that is prei'udicial to th ..1 . cnnuna action, not the criminal
the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, t~e petition to ectv1 actton." 70
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the However, the suspension of a .
rra1gnment does not stay the.issuance
and implementation f th
prosecution rests. determinationof o e warrant--of-arrest. The reason being that the
and distinct from :o~a~le c~use_by the judg~ issuing the warrant is separate
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a e e ermmation of the existence of a prejudicial question.
prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves
Petition to Suspend the Criminal Action
an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue-determ ines whether hThe rules provide that a.petition for_suspension..olthe criminal action
or not the criminal action may proceed. on t e.._~ound_of t~e existence of.-a prejudicial question in a civil case
~ be ~ ed e1the~ in.4 the office of the prosecutor during preliminary
1:1vesfigahon or>)' m the ~ t where the criminal action is pending, at any
PREJUDICIAL QUE STION time before t~ rosecution_rests.
~ : As a g~ in Section--2, Rule 11J, a..criminal action filed TheSupr~m~ Court has decided that "[t]he rule.on prejudicial question
subsequent to a separate civil case shall sus end the latter, with the option makes no distinction as to wboJs allowed to raise..the defense[,]" regardless
~: to consolidate it with the.Jormer. The xception o this rule, wherein the of w~ether or not the party filing is the party who filed or initiated the
criminal action.may be.suspended instea o e civil action (but without previously instituted civil case.71_
68
option for cpnsolidation) is the existence of a prejudicial question.
. This ,?g_b t,_ howaver, to move for a suspension of the-criminal case; is
A prejudicial question has been defined in a long line of jurisprudenc e ~ aivabl by ~..u:tue of prior-acts oHh~accused[,]" aS"the rule is procedural
as follows: m na e and made solely for the benefirand protection of-the individual
in bis private..capacity."72 In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that since
Actrre)Udicial quesh'o!!)is defined as that which arises the accused admitted the genuineness of his signature in pre-trial stage
in a casa e resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the of the criminal case for estafa, the fact that the defense of forgery was
issue..involved therein, anclthe._cognizance of which pertains to also raised in a pending civil case instituted prior cannot be a ground to
another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinativ e suspend proceedings in the estafa case, as he has waived his right to allege
of the cas~ before the eourt ~ e jurisdiction to try: and resolve the defense of forgery.73
the question must be lodged m another court or tribimal. It is
a fact distinct and separate from the crime Under the Revised Guidelines for ContinuousJrial of Criminal Cases,
a ceestion based on
it determines the guilror a "petition to suspend the action on the ground of-prejudicial question,
but so intimately connected withit that 74
when no civil case has been filed" is a prohibited motion.
innocence of the__accused.69
Elements of a Prejudicial Question
The rules, as reiterated in jurisprudence, provide that elements fa
68
See People v. Delizo, G.R. No. 141624, 17 August 2004.
prejudicial question are as follows: Wthe previously instituted c1v action
,,. Securities, Inc., G.R. No· 171435' 30 July 2008·, p·imen teI v. p·1men teI,
Reyes v. Pear/bank13Se
GR N 172060 -
ptember 2010; Mercado v. Saluda, Jr. G.R. No 180975 09 D
. . o. ,
ber 2009; Magestrado v. People GR No 148072 10
No. 124498, 05 October 2001; Yap v: Par~s GR ' July 007;
2
'
6
·
Sabandal v.
'
Tongco,
ecem
G.R.
10
71
Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 January 1992.
San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 04 September 2013.
Alano v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 111244, 15 December 1997.
I
Luna, G.R. No. L-53642, 15April 1988. Q:ia~b· No.~Ol~ , 30 January 1992; Donato v. 72

1988; Ras v. Rasul, G.R. Nos. L-5044l-42 Se ao v. besono, G.~. No. L-48157, 16 March 73 Alm10 v. Co11rl of Appeals, G.R. No. 1112~, 15 Dece~ ber 1997.
L-22759, 29 March 1968. '
18
ptem r 1980; Jmienez v. Averia, G.R. No. 1, Revised GuidelineS for Continuous Tnal of Criminal Cases, A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, 11
III.2.b.vii.
f8 130
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
131

in the
. . 1 t d to the.. issue raised Another example of •
involves an issue similar or mtun()1Jately re al eti. n of such issue determines
. . al acti'on, and the reso u do ;,s
IP d. . an incorrectly alleged prejudicial question is a
subsequent cmrun ct~ tf g ~ hon for nullity of the interest of a loan filed prior to a criminal
whether or not the criminal action may procee . ifi' d that in order ac tofn or.. {t~s Pambansa Big 22 l'elating to the.issuance of a check used to
. . . . • ·sprudencehasspec e
1s10 p ay 0 ~ s~c. oan. ~ Jo~e v. Suarez,82 the Supreme Court ruled that there is
Elaboratmgon this prov n, JUfl . · d in the civil-action
. f th 'minal case the issue raise ;:'.s;;;:e~ar 1:;:n;-:fne
o f' :t-.h-e--:a::-:c=cu no preJu~ic,al q~estion m such an instance because in Batas Pambansa Big.
to justify suspension o e en . ' . = :.=~
Id be d . ti of the guilt or innocence t this is so, 11 referen~ 22, what is p~rushed is the issuance of a worthless check, and the issue of
etermma ~
II
wou . th
criminal case."'6 In order to dete~e whe ;,~or no w~eth~r the interest rate is void does not determine whether one is guilty
is made to the elements of the cnme.-charged. of issuing a worthless check:
. th . ·t the Supreme Court held din a case that
Interpreting ese reqws1 es, . . . . . th !n the first place, the validity or invalidity of the interest
11 [i]f the resolution of the issue in the civil actio~ will n?t etermme e ra~e ~s not determinative of the guilt of respondents in the
criminal responsibility of the accused in the ~ a l action ba~d on ~he cnmmal cases. The Court has consistently declared that the
same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be deter~ed first cause or reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in
before taking up th~ ~ a l case, therefo~e, the ciy~l c~s~ does n~t m~olve ~etermining criminal culpability under B.P. Big. 22. In several
a prejudicial question. 1178 Likewise, there IS_p.o pre1ud1c1al quest10n if the instances, we have held that what the law punishes iS'the issuance
civil and th~criminal action m ay proceed independently oLeach other, an of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued
example of which is an independent civilaction under Articles 32;33, 34, or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance; and that
and 2176 oLCivil Code. 79 the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum
A dMsic exam~ of an incorrect alleged prejudicial question is a provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.
/ pending action for nullity of thefust marriage filed prior to a criminal action [... ]
for ~igamy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such pending
civil action does not raise a prejudicial question since the issue of validity . Thus, .whether or not the interest rate imposed by
of the first .marriage is immaterial to the prosecution of bigamy, because .. petitioners is eventually dedared voi.dfor being contra bonos
prior to the declaration of nullity, the parties remain married to each other mores will not affect the outcome of the B.P. Big. 22 cases
and thus, the crime would have already been committed.80 Further, the because what will ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance
Supreme Court remarked that it cannot allow such issue to suspend the of bouncing checks. In fact, the primordial question posed
II
proceedings as it will delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering before the court hearing the B.P. Big. 22 cases is whether the law
that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage has been breached, that is, if a bouncing check has been issued. 83
void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the (Emphasis supplied)
criminal case.1181 In one case, the Supreme Court found good reason to.,sfupend the
criminal action for Estafa in view of_.the pendency of an intra-corporate
S~n Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 04 September 2013; Pimentel v. case w hich had to determine th~ authority ot.the corporate officer.issuing
Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010; Dreamwork Construction, Inc..v. ]!IJ1iola, the demand letter:
G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009; Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. 148072, 10 July 2007;
Torres v. Garch1torena, G.R. No. 153666, 27December 2002· Sabandal v .,.ongco GR N The elements of demand and misappropriation bear
,. 124498, 05 October 2001. ' ·"
Pimen_te/ v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010· Sabandal v .,.
' · · o.
GR N
relevance to the validity or invalidity of the authority of Anaped
124498, 05 October 2001. ' · 'ongco, • • o. directors and officers. In Omictin v. Court ofAppeals, we held that
71
Reyes if Rossi, G:R.'No. 159823, 15 February 2013. since the alleged offended party is the corporation, the validity
,. of the demand for the delivery rests upon the authority of the
Sabandal v. Tongco, G.R. No. 124498, 05 October 2001
79
Consi11g, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161075 15 Jul 2013 · dti person making such a demand on the company's behalf. If the
1
Secti~n 3; Sabandal v. Tongco, G.R. No_ 24498_>'05 Oc~obe;~~~les of Court, Rule 111,
Cop1l1 v. People, G.R. No. 183805 03 July 2013 . Ab d ·
March 2004; Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110 01 ;:na O v. People, G.R. No. 159218, 30
81
Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, 03 Jul 2013· ugust 2000. Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008.
· ·
K
March 2004; Mercado v. Tan, G.R No 1 7110 'oAlAbunado v. People, G.R. No. 159218, 30
, ugust 2000.
82
83 Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULElll 133
132 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

akin the demand is found

supposed authority of !he person °:i wa! ever made, hence ~he
to be defective, it is _a_s if _n? _d ema:r The Cm1ttc:i4ded that mere
Sup~eme ~ourt allowed the suspension of a criminal case for violation of
Prestdent~al Decree No. 957, pending in the Office of the City Prosecutor, due

I
to a pending administrativ e case for specific performance in the Housing
·f
prosecution for estafa c~ot pr~srd ; ·administratio n or under
0 an~ Land Use_~egulatory Board (HLURB), reasoning that "because the
failure to return the thing r~eiv d to deliver or return the action for specific performance was an action civil in nature but could not
any other obligation involving ~e ~: owner could only give be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the
same or deliver the value thereo to ftute the crime of estafa. action was exclusive and originaJ."86
rise to a civil action and does not cons t f th f l
be convicted o e e ony In Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern University, Inc., the Supreme Court
It is true that the accused may R · d Penal Code if nevertheless applied the doctrine of prejudicial question, even if it admitted
h l(b) of the ev1se
under Article 315, paragrap . f or conversion by the that "[t]echnically, there.would be no prejudicial question to speak-of in
the prosecution proves misappropn~.: of the Information. In this case, on tbe..basis tbaUt.conside red the rationale behind the principle,
accused of the money or property ~u J ary where there thaUs, "to avoid two conflicting decisions."87 The said case involved an
a prosecution for estafa, demand ts not n~ess hr "to administrativ e case in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for
is evidence of_?Us~pp~opriation ~r convers1o~d~~lu~:e;'n ot nullification of the election of corporate directors, and a civil case in the
misappropria te to one s own use ha~ !Jeen sat al Regional Trial Court for damages for wrongful withdrawal of corporate
only conversion to one's personal advantage, b~t so ~verr,
funds by the said directors.88
attempt to dispose of the property of anot~er witho~t ~tght.
In this case, the resolution of the issue of misappropria tion by
·respondents depends upon the result of SEC Case No. 03-~9-6259•
If it is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped drrectors
and officers were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria
may have every right to refuse remittance _of _ren!al to Buban.
Hence, the essential element of misappropria tion m estafa may
be absent in this case.84

Kinds of Prejudicial Question

I· Civil-Criminal
A perusal of the rules would show that for a prejudicial question
to arise, there must be a civil case, instituted prior, and a criminal case,
instituted subsequently. As stated earlier, it is the criminal action that
shall be suspended, as "(i]t is the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial
to the continuation of the criminal action, not the criminal action that is
prejudicial to the civil action."85

2. Administrative-Crimina.1/Administrative-Civil
Despite the rules providing that a prejudicial question involves a civil
ca~ _and a criminal case, jurisprudence has allowed the suspension,.of a
~rm~.mal case o_n _the ~ound of prejudicial question..due to a previously
instituted adnurustrahv e case. In San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Perez, the
86 San Miguel Properties Inc. v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 04 September 2013.
84 87 Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern Un(versity, Inc., G.R. No. 140777, 08 Ap: ~~;·
People v. Arambulo, G.R. No. 186597, 17 July 2015.
85
Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 January 1992. 88 Abacan, I r. V. Northwestern U111vers1ty, Inc., G.R. No. 140777, 08 Ap .