CASE Reckless imprudence against petitioner Jarantilla (Beetle driver); Civil case filed separately

CASE NO/DATE G.R. No. 80194; March 21, 1989

CASE TITLE Edgar Jarantilla (Beetle car) v CA and Jose Kuan Sing
SUBJECT Extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil
liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civil liability for the
same act considered as a quasi-delict is not extinguished even by a declaration that the
criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused

FACTS
1. The records show that private respondent Sing was side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July, 1971 at Iloilo
City. The Volkwagen (Beetle) which figured in the mishap was driven by petitioner Jarantilla and that
respondent sustained injuries.
2. Case proceedings:
Criminal case: Reckless Imprudence
 Filed ahead of the civil case. Filing of
civil case was not reserved.
 MTCC: Petitioner Jarantilla was
acquitted.
Civil case
 Filed by Sing later than criminal case.
 Jarantilla’s Special and affirmative defenses: Sing had no cause of
action or barred by prior judgment in the criminal case
 Lower Court: Denied the motion to dismiss by Jarantilla
 Janrantilla filed a petitioner for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus to the SC assailing the order.
 SC: Dismissed the petition and denied MR on the ground that
Court did not find grave abuse of discretion on the lower
court.
 Lower Court: rendered judgment in favour of respondent Sing
and to pay Sing
 P6,920 for hospitalization, medicines, so forth
 P2,000 for actual expenses
 P25,000 for moral damages
 P5,000 for attorney’s fees and costs
 CA: affirmed the decision. Moral damages reduced from P25,000
to P18,000

ISSUE 1 Whether or not respondent Sing, the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru
reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution without reserving the civil action
arising from the act, can file a separate action for civil liability from the same act or omission where
the petitioner was acquitted.

RULING Yes. It is a settled rule that the same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part of the
offender, civil liability ex delicto and civil liability ex quasi-delicto.

Private respondent filed a separate civil action after such acquittal which is allowed on these grounds:
1. Under Article 29 of the CC, when the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same
act or omission may be instituted;
2. Under the doctrine that failure of the court to make any pronouncement as to the civil liability of
the accused amounts to reservation of the right to file a separate action.

The acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil liability based on Article 100 of the RPC. Divested of
its penal element by such acquittal, the causative act becomes in effect a quasi-delict. Since this
action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure to reserve his right did not bar him from filing such
separate civil action for damages.

NOTE In this milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt, it could very well
make a pronouncement on the civil liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition
for mandamus to compel the trial court to include such liability in the judgment of acquittal.

FALLO Petition is hereby denied. The decision of the respondent CA is affirmed. No pronouncement as to
costs.