CELESTINA B. CORPUZ, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, complainant, vs.

JUDGE
ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, respondent

Facts: Celestina B. Corpuz, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, filed an Affidavit
Complaint against the respondent Orlando Ana F. Siapno, Presiding Judge of the same Court, charging him with Violation
of Administrative Circular Nos. 3-92 and 17-94, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Falsification, Conduct Unbecoming of
a Public Officer, Abuse of Authority, Delay in the Administration of Justice and Ignorance of the Law.
Complainant alleged, among others, that he failed to award Civil Damages in 2 Criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos.
12527 and 13482). In his comment, the respondent Judge claimed that he did not award civil damages in Criminal Cases
Nos. 12527 and 13482 because the prosecution did not present any evidence therefor. The court then referred the matter
to the RTC of Dagupan City for investigation. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Office of Court Administrator for
evaluation, report and recommendation. OCA adopted findings of RTC that all the charges be dropped except for
Ignorance of Law for failure to award Civil Damages in the said 2 criminal cases. For that, OCA fined the respondent
judge.
Issue: whether or not there is a need for the prosecution to present evidence regarding the civil aspect for the court to
award civil damages.

Ruling: no. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when a complaint or information is filed even without any
allegation of damages and the intention to prove and claim them, it is understood that the offended party has the right to
prove and claim for them, unless a waiver or reservation is made, or unless in the meantime, the offended party instituted
a separate civil action. In such case, the civil liability arising from a crime may be determined in the criminal proceedings if
the offended party does not waive to have it adjudged or does not reserve the right to institute a separate civil action
against the defendant. Accordingly, if there is no waiver or reservation of civil liability, evidence should be allowed to
establish the extent of injuries suffered.
The rule expressly imposes upon the courts the duty of entering judgment with respect to the civil liability arising from
the offense, if no reservation has been made to ventilate it in a separate action. Indeed, even in case of an acquittal,
unless there is a clear showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the judgment shall make a
finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of the offended party. Therefore, it was error for respondent not to have
entered judgment with respect to the civil liability.
Nature of civil damages in Criminal action: It is also fundamental that the imposition of the fine imposed in the criminal
case is not for the purpose of indemnifying the aggrieved party but for vindicating the State for the offense committed by
the wrongdoer.
[A]n offense causes two classes of injuries-the first is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is sought to be
repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty, and the second is the personal injury caused to the victim of
the crime which injury is sought to be compensated thru indemnity which is civil in nature. Hence, when no civil action is
expressly instituted it shall be impliedly instituted with the criminal action. That means that if two actions are joined in one
as twins, each one complete with the same completeness as any of the two normal persons composing a twin. It means
that the civil action may be tried and prosecuted, with all the ancillary processes provided by law.
The methods for indemnifying the private complainant is provided for under the provisions on civil liability which,
under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, includes: restitution; reparation for the damage caused; and indemnification
for consequential damages. Pursuant to these statutory provisions, it behooves respondent to require the production of
evidence to make a finding on civil liability. This is especially so where the accused has pleaded guilty and has therefore
admitted his liability.

LUTGARDA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HEIRS
OF ESTANISLAWA C. REYES, represented by MIGUEL C. REYES,respondents.

Facts: The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document
before the Manila Regional Trial Court. [3] Petitioner executed before a Notary Public in the City of Manila an Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication of a parcel of land stating that she was the sole surviving heir of the registered owner when in fact she
knew there were other surviving heirs. Since the offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action
arising from the criminal offense, the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal case.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision acquitting petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. In
the same decision, the trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case, ordering the return to the surviving
heirs of the parcel of land located in Bulacan.
On January 28, 1994, petitioner received a copy of the decision.
On February 10, 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration dated February 7, 1994,
assailing the trial courts ruling on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner furnished the City Prosecutor a copy of
the motion by registered mail.
On April 18, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Issue: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANILA HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF A CRIMINAL CASE FOR
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT, INVOLVING A PROPERTY LOCATED IN BULACAN

Ruling: Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the crime
was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law
requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime.
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article
104 of the same Code states that civil liability x x x includes restitution.
The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal action unless reserved by the offended
party. In the instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and the civil action was deemed instituted in
the criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of the crime charged, the acquittal, grounded on
reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability. Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to decide the civil aspect
of the instant case - ordering restitution even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.

SPOUSES Benito Lo Bun Tiong vs Vicente Balboa

Facts: Vicente Balboa filed two (2) cases against Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng:
(1) A CIVIL CASE for sum of money based on the three (3) post-dated checks issued by Caroline in the total amount
of P5,175,250.00. The Regional Trial Court found the spouses liable and ordered them to pay the amount.
(2) A CRIMINAL CASE for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Caroline covering the said three checks. The
Municipal Trial Court acquitted Caroline but held her civilly liable. On appeal, the RTC modified the MTC Decision by
deleting the award of civil damages.
The spouses now comes to court charging Balboa with forum-shopping.

Issue:
Whether or not the Balboa's act of filing civil and criminal cases constitute forum-shopping.
Held: no. Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the
supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. It is usually resorted to by a party against
whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek and possibly to get a favorable
opinion

in

another

forum,

other

than

by

an

appeal

or

special

civil

action

for

certiorari.

There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who
represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded
on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will amount to res judicata

in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.

In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp., the Court ruled that there is identity of parties and
causes of action between a civil case for the recovery of sum of money as a result of the issuance of bouncing checks,
and a criminal case for the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 violation. Thus, it ordered the dismissal of the civil action so as to
prevent

double

payment

of

the

claim.

In the said case, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 effective September 16, 1997, which provides
that "the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding
civil

action,

and

no

reservation

to

file

such

action

separately

shall

be

allowed

or

recognized."

This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: (b) The criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such
civil

action

separately

shall

be

allowed.

The foregoing, however, is not applicable as the civil and criminal case were filed on February 24, 1997 and on July 21,
1997, respectively, prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on September 16, 1997. At the time of filing
of

the

cases,

the

governing

rule

is

Section

1,

Rule

111

of

the

1985

Rules

of

Court,

to

wit:

SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his
right

to

institute

it

separately,

or

institutes

the

civil

action

prior

to

the

criminal

action.

Since Balboa instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the
criminal cases and there is no forum shopping to speak of. Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for the
recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P. No. 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead of the criminal
case. Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases.

Anita Cheng vs SPS Sy

Facts: Anita Cheng filed 2 criminal cases for estafa against SPS Sy for issuing 2 Philippine Bank of Commerce
checks worth P300,000 each, in payment for their loan, both of which were dishonored upon presentment for having been
drawn against a closed account. Based on the same facts, petitioner also filed 2 complaints for violation of of BP 22.

RTC dismissed both actions for estafa. The criminal case against the wife Sy contained no declaration as to the civil
liability. On the other hand, the case against the husband Sy that the liability is purely civil.

Later, MeTC dismissed the BP22 case without pronouncements as to the civil liability of the accused respondents.
Petitioner lodged against respondents before the RTC, Manila, a complaint for collection of a sum of money with
damages based on the same loaned amount of P600,000.00 covered by the two PBC checks previously subject of the
estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases. In dismissing the complaint, the RTC stated that it lacked jurisdiction ratiocinating that the
civil action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 with damages was already impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 cases in
light of Section 1, paragraph (b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners action to recover respondents civil liability be also allowed to prosper separately after
the BP Blg. 22 cases were dismissed
Ruling: Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.

xxx
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on
the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the
complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the
amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages [is] subsequently awarded by the court, the filing
fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
Indeed, under the present revised Rules, the criminal action for violation of BP Blg. 22 includes the corresponding civil
action to recover the amount of the checks. It should be stressed, this policy is intended to discourage the separate filing
of the civil action. In fact, the Rules even prohibits the reservation of a separate civil action, i.e., one can no longer file a
separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed
is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourages the consolidation of the civil
and criminal cases. Thus, where petitioners rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the court trying the
BP Blg. 22 cases, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted on account of res judicata, for
failure of petitioner to appeal the civil aspect of the cases. In view of this special rule governing actions for violation of BP
Blg. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code is not applicable.
In this case, the Court reinstated a civil action for the recovery of civil damages:
However, in applying the procedure discussed above, it appears that petitioner would be left without a remedy to
recover from respondents the P600,000.00 allegedly loaned from her. This could prejudice even the petitioners Notice of
Claim involving the same amount filed in Special Proceedings No. 98-88390 (Petition for Voluntary Insolvency by Kolin
Enterprises, William Sy and Tessie Sy), which case was reportedly archived for failure to prosecute the petition for an
unreasonable length of time.[21] Expectedly, respondents would raise the same defense that petitioner had already elected
to litigate the civil action to recover the amount of the checks along with the BP Blg. 22 cases.
It is in this light that we find petitioners contention that she was not assisted by a private prosecutor during the BP Blg. 22
proceedings critical. Petitioner indirectly protests that the public prosecutor failed to protect and prosecute her cause when
he failed to have her establish the identities of the accused during the trial and when he failed to appeal the civil action
deemed impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases. On this ground, we agree with petitioner.
Faced with the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases, petitioners recourse pursuant to the prevailing rules of
procedure would have been to appeal the civil action to recover the amount loaned to respondents corresponding to the
bounced checks. Hence, the said civil action may proceed requiring only a preponderance of evidence on the part of
petitioner. Her failure to appeal within the reglementary period was tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to
recover the civil liability of respondents. However, due to the gross mistake of the prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 cases, we
are constrained to digress from this rule.
It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel. [22] But this rule admits of
exceptions (1) where the counsels mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court,
or (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the clients deprivation of liberty or property without due
process of law. Tested against these guidelines, we hold that petitioners lot falls within the exceptions.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PEDRO ABUNGAN alias"Pedring," RANDY PASCUA and ERNESTO
RAGONTON Jr., accused; PEDRO ABUNGAN alias "Pedring," appellant.
Facts: All of the 3 accused were charged with the crime of murder of Camilo Dirilo. The appellant, Abungan, with the
assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, all of the accused were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Penalty of imprisonment with civil liability of P50,000 was imposed. Notice of appeal was timely filed by
the appellants counsel. During the pendency of the appeal however, the Abungan died.
Issue: whether or not the death of Abungan extinguish his civil liability based solely on delict.
Ruling: yes. In the present case, it is clear that, following the disquisition in Bayotas, the death of appellant extinguished
his criminal liability. Moreover, because he died during the pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the judgment
against him, his civil liability arising from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto) was also extinguished. It must be
added, though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict. For this reason, the victims
may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.
Moreover, we hold that the death of Appellant Abungan would result in the dismissal of the criminal case against him.
Necessarily, the lower court's Decision -- finding him guilty and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased -- becomes ineffectual.
[11]