ALASTAIR JOHN KAINE V PATRICIA ROGGENKAMP

G.R .NO. 214326, JULY 6, 2020, THIRD DIVISION

PONENTE: LEONEN, J.;
NATURE OF THE ACTION: DAMAGES BASED ON INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION; SOURCES
OF OBLIGATION
FACTS:
Respondent filed a criminal action for Violence Against Women and Their Children (RA 9262)
against petitioner. Respondent alleged that she was physically and verbally abused by petitioner several
times. The trial court acquitted petitioner on reasonable doubt. Thereafter, respondent filed an action for
damages based on Art. 33 of the Civil Code. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res
judicata. The trial court granted the motion, while on CA, the appellate court reversed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
1) WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER MAY STILL BE HELD FOR DAMAGES DESPITE
ACQUITTAL BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT
2) WHETHER OR NOT THE ACQUITAL OF THE PETITIONER CONSTITUTE A RES
JUDICATA ON THE CIVIL ACTION FILED BY RESPONDENT BASED ON ART. 33 OF THE
CIVIL CODE
RULING:
1) Yes.
The Court explained that there are two results in a criminal case from which civil liability
against the accused is resolved. The first one is when the court found the accused not the
author of the crime in which case the issue on civil liability is absolutely closed since the acts
or omission from which civil liability arises cannot be used against the respondent who has
no participation on it. While, on the other hand, if the court acquitted the accused based on
reasonable doubt, civil liability might still arise and it can be proven through preponderance
of evidence since in this type of acquittal the criminal act is not established by the required
evidence but the act or omission is still logically imputed on the accused who may be held
liable for damages for the same act or omission based on other sources of obligation.
Here, the second type is applicable since the trial court acquitted petitioner based on
reasonable doubt. Thus, petitioner is not totally exempt from civil liability.
2) No.

The Court held that an act or omission may give rise to two or more civil actions arising from
different sources of obligation. The acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not
automatically result to the resolution of civil action based on another source of obligation
such as an independent civil action under Art. 33 of the Civil Code. The same act or omission
may still be used in that civil action to determine the liability of the respondent. Res judicata
requires, among others, that the action in prior case must be the same with respect to cause of
action in the instituted action.
Thus, petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case is not a res judicata on the subsequently filed
civil action based on Art. 33 of the Civil Code as the latter is based on independent civil
action different from that of liability based on crime. The cause of action in the subsequently
filed civil action is different from that of prior criminal action.