Elcano and Elcano v.

Hill and Hill

G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977, 77 SCRA
Doctrine: ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article
is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.

Facts: Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A
criminal complaint was instituted against him but he was acquitted on the ground that
his act was not criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake.
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of damages against defendant
Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the
defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting subsistence, for the same
killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of First Instance of
Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was finally dismissed upon
motion for reconsideration.

Issue: WoN the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in
the criminal case.

Ruling: No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of
Reginald in the criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required
in a criminal case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case
for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal
act. As such the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his
liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.