15

DECEMBER 21, 1983

FACTS
DR. EVA A. JAPZON is accused of homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto
Madeja after an appendectomy. The complaining witness is the widow of the deceased,
Carmen L. Madeja. The information states that: "The offended party Carmen L. Madeja
reserving her right to file a separate civil action for damages."
The criminal case still pending, Carmen L. Madeja sued Dr. Eva A. Japzon for damages in Civil
Case with the same court. She of the complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already
prescribed. Besides, in cases of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an
action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action
for quasi delict under the Civil Code.

alleged that her husband died because of the gross negligence of Dr. Japzon. The respondent
judge granted the defendant's motion to dismiss which motion invoked Section 3(a) of Rule 111
of the Rules of Court.
According to the respondent judge, "the instant civil action may be instituted only after final eason of
such collision, a criminal case was filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, charging petitioner Manliclic
with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries.

HELD

In Padua v. Robles, we held that Civil liability coexists with criminal

responsibility. In negligence cases, the offended party (or his heirs) has the
option between an happened or has not been committed by the accused.
As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be
extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was
not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist). The responsibility
arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
It is now settled that acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty,
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict.

action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under

Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. x x
x Article 2177 of the Civil Code, however, precludes recovery of damages twice
for the same negligent act or omission.

Consequently, a separate civil action for damages lies

Subsequently respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Manliclic and PRBLI
before the RTC of Dagupan City. The criminal case was tried ahead of the civil case.
Judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the said
defendants to pay plaintiff jointly and solidarily.
Petitioners appealed the decision via Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
In a decision, the Court of Appeals, found no reversible error in the decision of the trial court,
and affirmed it in all respects.From the foregoing declaration of the Court of Appeals, it appears
that petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the ground that he is
not the author of the act complained of.

ISSUE
Whether the acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, carries
with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict.

RULING
as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act
charged has not