You are on page 1of 2

WHAT IS A PRIVATE CRIME?

> Private offense which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
aggrieved party
> Only to give deference to the offended party who may prefer not to file the case instead of
going through a scandal of a public trial

How is bigamy different from adultery/concubinage?


In adultery/concubinage, the law requires that both culprits, if both are alive, should
he prosecuted or included in the information. In bigamy, the second spouse could be
charged only if she/he had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the
accused. Bigamy is a public offense and a crime against status, while adultery and
concubinage are private offenses and are crimes against chastity. In
adultery/concubinage, pardon by the offended party will bar the prosecution of the
case, which is not so in bigamy.

Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
Case: Cruz vs Mina
Case: DMPI vs Velez
Q: So, when it comes to Reservation Requirement, we are referring to what
civil action?
A: Civil action arising from the crime.
Procedural law must yield to substantive law.
Section 3. When civil action may proceeded independently. In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.

When it comes to independent civil action, there is no more reservation to


speak of because it can proceed independently of the criminal case.
Case: Jadewell Parking System vs Lidua
Q: What are the 2 classes of injury?
A: 1. Social Injury
2. Personal Injury

TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY (23 SCRA 29)


FACTS: Tijam filed for recovery of P1,908 + legal interest from Sibongahanoy. Defendants filed a
counter bond with Manila
Surety and Fidelity Co (Surety). Judgement was in favour of the plaintiffs, a writ of execution was
issued against the defendant. Defendants moved for writ of execution against surety which was
granted. Surety moved to quash the writ but was denied, appealed to CA without raising the issue
on lack of jurisdiction.
CA affirmed the appealed decision. Surety then filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction against CFI Cebu in view of the effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1948 a month before the
filing of the petition for recovery. Act placed original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil
actions for demands not exceeding 2,000 exclusive of interest. CA set aside its earlier decision and
referred the case to SC since it has exclusive jurisdiction over "all cases in which the jurisdiction of
any inferior court is in issue.
ISSUE: WON Surety bond is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the CFI Cebu for the first
time upon appeal.YES
RATIO: SC believes that that the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea after
almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss raising the question of lack of
jurisdiction for the first time - A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different
ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by
record, and of estoppel by laches. Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could
or should have been done earlier - Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily
submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser
to question the jurisdiction or power of the court -"undesirable practice" of a party submitting his
case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction, when adverse.
: Other merits on the appeal : The surety insists that the lower court should have granted its motion
to quash the writ of execution because the same was issued without the summary hearing Summary hearing is "not intended to be carried on in the formal manner in which ordinary actions
are prosecuted" (83 C.J.S. 792). It is, rather, a procedure by which a question is resolved "with
dispatch, with the least possible delay, and in preference to ordinary legal and regular judicial
proceedings" (Ibid, p. 790). What is essential is that "the defendant is notified or summoned to
appear and is given an opportunity to hear what is urged upon him, and to interpose a defense,
after which follows an adjudication of the rights of the parties - In the case at bar, the surety had
been notified of the plaintiffs' motion for execution and of the date when the same would be
submitted for consideration. In fact, the surety's counsel was present in court when the motion was

called, and it was upon his request that the court a quo gave him a period of four days within which
to file an answer. Yet he allowed that period to lapse without filing an answer or objection. The
surety cannot now, therefore, complain that it was deprived of its day in court.

The orders appealed from are affirmed.