CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS

: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

LEE PUE LIONG V. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE asserted its right to intervene in the proceedings subject to the direction
& control of the public prosecutor
FACTS: CA – in favor Presence of private prosecutor who was under the control and
of respondent supervision of the public prosecutor during the criminal proceedings is
1. Lee Pue Liong (Lee) was the president of CHI, a company affiliated with CKC not proscribed by the rules. Respondent = aggrieved party
Group of Companies Respondent’s property rights and interest as the treasurer and SH
of CHI were disturbed and/or threatened by the alleged acts of the
2. CKC group is subject of intracorporate disputes between petitioner and his petitioner
siblings (respondents)
3. 1999, petitioners siblings took over and barricaded themselves inside the
premises of the factory owned by CKC. HELD:
4. 1999, petitioner on behalf of CHI caused the filing of a verified petition for the
issuance of an owner’s duplicate copy of TCT which covers the property owned (1) Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental
by CHI. postulate of our law that—every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
5. Petitioner submitted an affidavit of loss, claiming that it was lost/misplaced, it (2) Traditional theory that
exerted diligent effort but it had not been found. - When a person commits a crime he offends two entities
6. RTC granted the petition and granted the Registry of Deeds of Manila to issue a Society/State In which he leaves/ state whose laws were violated
new TCT. Individual Whose person, right, honor, chastity or property were actually
7. Respondent filed an omnibus motion praying that the 1999 order be set aside and directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or
claiming that the petitioner knew fully well that respondent was in possession of omission
(3) In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody of TCT covering
said owner’s duplicate copy, being the corporate treasurer and custodian of vital
CHI’s property and its loss through inadvertence if found to be perjured is
documents.
without doubt, injurious to respondent’s personal credibility and reputation in so
8. Respondent claims that the petitioner merely needs to have another copy because
far as her faithful performance of the duties and responsibilities of a board
he planned to mortgage the same with Planters Development bank
member or treasurer is concerned
9. 2000, respondent executed a supplemental affidavit accusing the petitioner of
(4) The right reserved by the rules to the offended party is that of intervening for the
perjury allegedly committed
sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the criminal act and not of
- By declaring in the verification the veracity of the contents in his petition filed in
demanding punishment of the accused.
RTC
(5) Such intervention moreover is always subject to the direction or control of the
- By declaring under oath in his affidavit that said TCT was lost
public prosecutor.
- By testifying under oath that the said TCT was inadvertently lost from his files.
(6) Under the rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted
10. City prosecutor filed an information for perjury
in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
11. Atty.Macam appeared as counsel for respondent and as private prosecutor under
counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
the control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
(7) Rule Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a
12. Petitioner’s counsel claims that the respondent and her lawyer should be
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
excluded from participating in the case
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
- since perjury is a public offense.
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
- In Article 183 of RPC, there is no mention of any private offended party.
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
- As such, the private prosecutor cannot intervene.
(8) Private respondent did not waive the civil action nor did she reserve the right to
- There being no allegation of damage to private interest, private prosecutor is
institute it separately nor instituted the civil action for damages arising from the
not needed.
offense charged.
MeTC denied Law makes no distinction between cases that are public in nature and
Omnibus those that can only be prosecuted at the instance of the offended party.
Motion The case at bar involves a public crime and the private prosecutor has
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

(9) Evidence should be allowed in the criminal proceedings to establish the civil
liability arising from the offense committed and the private offended party has
the right to intervene through the private prosecutor
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
CANCIO JR. V. CAISIP
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, assisted by a private prosecutor, filed three cases of Violation of
B.P. No. 22 and three cases of Estafa, against respondent for allegedly issuing
the following checks without sufficient funds,
2. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed case for Violation of B.P.
No. 22
3. The two other cases for Violation of B.P. No. 22 were filed with and
subsequently dismissed by the MTC
4. Meanwhile, the three cases for Estafa were filed with the RTC
5. On October 21, 1997, after failing to present its second witness, the
prosecution moved to dismiss the estafa cases against respondent.
6. The prosecution likewise reserved its right to file a separate civil action
arising from the said criminal cases. On the same date, the trial court granted
the motions of the prosecution.
7. On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant case for collection of sum of
money, seeking to recover the amount of the checks subject of the estafa cases.
8. On February 18, 1998, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
contending that petitioners action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Respondent further prayed that petitioner should be held in contempt of
court for forum-shopping
TC In favor of respondent
Dismissal : Ground of lack of interest or failure to prosecute
- Adjudication on the merits = res judicata
ISSUES:
1) whether the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a
civil action for collection of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases; and
2) whether the filing of said civil action violated the anti-forum-shopping rule.
Held :
(1) An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate
civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto,
under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil
liabilities,
(2) Either of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender
subject however to Art 2177 of CC –offended party cannot recover twice for
the same act or omission
(3) Decision of TC-March 20,1998
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
(4) Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure- December 1,2000 –must have a
retroactive effect in the instant case considering that the sattutes regulating
procedure of court are construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage
1985 Rules Present Rules
Civil liability ex delicto Civil liability ex delicto deemed instituted with
deemed instituted with criminal criminal action. But offended party is given an
action. But offended party is opportunity to file civil action before the
given an opportunity to file prosecution starts with presentment of evidence
civil action before the
prosecution starts with
presentment of evidence
Arts 31,32,33,34,2176— Independent civil action may be filed separately
deemed impliedly instituted & prosecuted independently even without
reservation in the criminal action
Failure –(x) waiver of right to file a separate
and independent civil action
(5) In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by petitioner show that his
cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an independent civil action.
(6) Evidently, petitioner sought to enforce respondents obligation to make good
the value of the checks in exchange for the cash he delivered to respondent. In
other words, petitioners cause of action is the respondents breach of the
contractual obligation.
(7) The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the
complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an action or suit
and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party
filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint
itself, its allegations and prayer for relief.
(8) Neither does it matter that the civil action reserved in the October 21, 1997
order of the trial court was the civil action ex delicto.
(9) an independent civil action arising from contracts, as in the instant case,
may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any
reservation in the criminal action.
(10) Under Article 31 of the Civil Code [w]hen the civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,
[e.g. culpa contractual] such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
(11) One of the elements of res judicata is identity of causes of action
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

(12) In the instant case, it must be stressed that the action filed by petitioner is an
independent civil action, which remains separate and distinct from any
criminal prosecution based on the same act
(13) Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, a
ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said
independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e.,
culpa contractual.
(14) In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the
estafa cases against respondent did not amount to forum-shopping.
(15) The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases filed by
petitioner arose from the same act or omission of respondent, they are,
however, based on different causes of action.
(16) The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil
action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
FERRER, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Does a finding of lack of administrative liability of a respondent government official
bar the filing of a criminal case against him for the same acts?
FACTS:
1. On January 29, 2001, an Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti
Graft and Corrupt Practices act
DOMINADOR C. FERRER, JR., being the Administrator of the Intramuros Administration (IA),
Manila, while in the performance of his official and administrative functions as such, and acting
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits to Offshore Construction and
Development Company, by causing the award of the Lease Contracts to said company, involving
Baluarte de San Andres, Ravellin de Recolletos, and Baluarte de San Francisco de Dilao,
Intramuros, Manila, without conducting any public bidding as required under Joint Circular No.
1 dated September 30, 1989 of the Department of Budget and Management, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Public Works and Highways, and by
allowing the construction of new structures in said leased areas without any building permit or
clearance required under the Intramuros Charter (P.D. 1616) and the National Building Code,
to the damage and prejudice of public interest
2. On April 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, alleging that the
Office of the Ombudsman disregarded certain factual matters which, if
considered, will negate the finding of probable cause. –Public respondent
DENIED petitioner's contentions :are all evidentiary in nature and may be
properly considered only in a full-blown trial.
3. On September 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Shortly
thereafter, he filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, asserting
that the complainants were guilty of forum shopping, due to the earlier
dismissal of the administrative case against him . –DENIED
4. Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Again, he cited as his ground the alleged forum shopping of the private
complainants -- DENIED there was no forum shopping since the
administrative and criminal cases are two different actions, so neither
resolution on the same would have the effect of res judicata
5. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the SC DISMISSED
MR denied with finality
6. On May 19, 2003, before he can be arraigned, petitioner filed yet another
motion with public respondent, this time a Motion for Re-determination of
Probable Cause, invoking the ruling of the Office of the President (OP), dated
February 29, 2000, which absolved petitioner of administrative liability.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
7. The OP reviewed the administrative case filed against petitioner with the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) and held that
petitioner acted in good faith and within the scope of his authority --
Sandiganbayan issued assailed resolution denying the motion for
redetermination
Petitioner insists that the Sandiganbayan should have dismissed the criminal case
filed against him, since the alleged wrongful acts complained of in the case are
the same as those alleged in the administrative case against him which have been
dismissed
Held:
THE PETITION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT.
(1) PAREDES V. SANDIGANBAYAN: But one thing is administrative liability.
Quite another thing is the criminal liability for the same act.
(2) As we have held in Tan v. Comelec, the dismissal of an administrative case
does not necessarily bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or
similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint
(3) It is clear from Paredes that the criminal case against petitioner, already filed
and pending with the Sandiganbayan, may proceed despite the dismissal of the
administrative case arising out of the same acts.
(4) Petitioners argue that the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the administrative
case against them based on the same subject matter should operate to dismiss
the criminal case because the quantum of proof in criminal cases is proof
beyond reasonable doubt, while that in administrative cases is only substantial
evidence .
Administrative Liability Criminal Liability
mainly to protect the public service, punishment of crime.
based on the time-honored principle
that a public office is a public trust
(5) To sustain petitioner's arguments will be to require the Sandiganbayan and the
Ombudsman to merely adopt the results of administrative investigations which
would not only diminish the powers and duties of these constitutional offices,
but also violate the independent nature of criminal and administrative cases
against public officials.
(6) This will also amount to untold delays in criminal proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman, as every criminal trial and investigation
before these bodies will be made to await the results of pending administrative
investigations. Such is not the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the
laws governing public officers
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

(7) The present case differs from Larin because here, the. The administrative case
was not filed on the basis of a criminal conviction, as in fact, the This is in
contrast with Larin, where the

Larin Case Present case

administrative case was dismissed only
after its basis, the criminal conviction,
was overturned on appeal.
administrative case was filed
independently of the criminal case
administrative case was dismissed
without regard for the results of the
criminal case.

(8) The independent nature of a criminal prosecution dictates that the

Sandiganbayan must determine petitioner's criminal liability without its hands
being tied by what transpired in the administrative case.
(9) The court is duty-bound to exercise its independent judgment.
(10) It is not ousted of its jurisdiction by the ruling in the administrative proceeding.
It is axiomatic that when the court obtains jurisdiction over a case, it continues
to retain it until the case is terminated.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

CORPUZ VS SIAPNO (8) 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,
FACTS: the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused
in favor of the offended party.[
1. Cruz (Clerk of Court of MTC Pangasinan) filed an complaint against Siapno
(9) Therefore, it was error for respondent not to have entered judgment with
(Presiding Judge of the same court) charging him of violation of Anti –Graft
respect to the civil liability.
and corrupt practices act, falsification, conduct unbecoming of a public
officer, abuse of authority and delay in the administration of justice and Fines Civil Liability
Vindicating an offense Restitution, reparation for the damage
ignorance of the law
caused, and indemnification for
2. One of those involves Siapno’s failure to award Civil damages in two
consequential damages.
criminal offenses.
- Records disclose that both accused pleaded guilty and respondent judge imposed
(10) Pursuant to these statutory provisions, it behooves respondent to require
fines corresponding to damages
the production of evidence to make a finding on civil liability. This is
3. In his defense, the prosecution did not present any evidence of the civil aspect
especially so where the accused has pleaded guilty and has therefore
of the crime.
admitted his liability.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT SIAPNO ERRED NOT AWARDING CIVIL
DAMAGES

HELD; YES

(1) Concomitant with his rendition of a guilty verdict –he should likewise
make finding of the accused’s civil liability
(2) Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
(3) Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for
all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act
or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
(4) 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
(5) 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.
(6) Accordingly, if there is no waiver or reservation of civil liability,
evidence should be allowed to establish the extent of injuries suffered.
(7) 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
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
CRUZ VS CA
FACTS:
1. The City Prosecutor of Manila charged Lutgarda Cruz with the crime of Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document before the RTC .
2. 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.
3. 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.
TC acquitting petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt.
rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case, ordering the return to
the surviving heirs of the parcel of land located in Bulacan
CA denied due course to the petition and dismissed the case for being
insufficient in substance.
the Court of Appeals upheld the assailed decision of the trial court on the
civil aspect of the case,
Petitioner’s contention :
(1) A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the
prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.
(2) However, either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil
aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused.
(3) The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused.
(4) The acquittal ends the work of the public prosecutor and the case is
terminated as far as he is concerned.
(5) The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the
offended party and the accused. Thus, any appeal or motion for
reconsideration of the civil aspect of a decision in a criminal case
must be served on the other real party in interest.
(6) If the offended party appeals or moves for reconsideration, the accused is
necessarily served a copy of the pleading through his counsel.
(7) If the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a lacuna arises if the
offended party is not represented by a private counsel.
(8) In such a situation, under the present Rules only the public prosecutor is
served the notice of appeal or a copy of the motion for reconsideration.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
(9) To fill in this lacuna in the present Rules, we require that henceforth
if the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, he should serve a
copy of his pleading on the offended party himself if the latter is not
represented by a private counsel. This is in addition to service on the
public prosecutor who is the counsel of record of the State.
(10) In the instant case, the Court notes that petitioner did not serve a copy of
her motion for reconsideration on the offended party who was not
represented by a private counsel in the trial court. In the interest of justice,
and considering that the present Rules are silent on the matter, it is only
fair to give petitioner a period of five days from receipt of this decision
within which to serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the
offended party.
Trial courts jurisdiction over the civil aspect.
(11) Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect
of the criminal case. Petitioner asserts that the Manila trial court had
no jurisdiction over the parcel of land in Bulacan which is outside the
trial courts territorial jurisdiction.
(12) In upholding the trial courts jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals held:Being
a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain
to civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit
(13) We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
(14) Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject property outside the
courts territorial jurisdiction deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over
the civil aspect of the criminal case. This argument is contrary to the law
and the rules.
(15) There are three important requisites which must be present before a court
can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court must have jurisdiction
over the subject matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over
the territory where the offense was committed. Third, the court must
have jurisdiction over the person of the accused
(16) In the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter
- as the law has conferred on the court the power to hear and decide cases
involving estafa through falsification of a public document.
- The trial court also had jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was
committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
- The trial court also acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-petitioner
because she voluntarily submitted to the courts authority.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

(17) 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.
(18) 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.
(19) The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the
criminal action unless reserved by the offended party
(20) In the instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and
the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal action.
(21) Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of the crime charged, the
acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil
liability
(22) 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.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

Lo Bun Tiong vs Balboa Criminal action Civil Action

prime purpose of the criminal action is for the restitution, reparation or
1. The spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng is to punish the offender to deter indemnification of the private
(petitioners) charge Vicente Balboa (respondent) with forum shopping. him and others from committing the offended party for the damage or
2. On February 1997, respondent filed with (RTC) Civil Case for Collection same or similar offense, to isolate injury he sustained by reason of the
of Sum of Money against petitioners. The amount sought covers three post- him from society, reform or delictual or felonious act of the
dated checks issued by petitioner Caroline Siok Ching Teng (Caroline) rehabilitate him or, in general, to accused
3. On 1997, separate criminal complaints for violation B.P. No. 22 were filed maintain social order.
against Caroline before the (MTC) covering the said three checks.

Civil Case Criminal Case (3) .In Hyatt and Silangan, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97
RTC: Petitioner Liable MTC Acquitted Carloine for effective September 16, 1997, which provides:The criminal action for
failure of the prosecution violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include
to prove her guilt beyond the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such action
reasonable doubt separately shall be allowed or recognized.
- Civilly liable (4) This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Motion for partial Criminal Procedure, to wit:(b) The criminal action for violation of
reconsideration regarding Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
award of civil indemnity -- civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
DENIED allowed.
CA Affirmed RTC Deleted award for civil (5) Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
MOR –DENIED Damages
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
Petitioner’s contention:
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where
4. assailed CA Decision and Resolution should be reconsidered and the RTC the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
Decision dated August 11, 1998 dismissed as respondent's act of filing Civil nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the
Case No. 97-82225 and Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78 constitutes forum filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
shopping. alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the
filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
ISSUE: WON RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING judgment.
(6) Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
(1) There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted,
actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this
is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount
to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis THE FOREGOING RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE
pendentia.
(2) In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp-- (7) The foregoing, however, are not applicable to the present case. It is worth
there is identity of parties and causes of action between a civil case for noting that Civil Case No. 97-82225 was filed on February 24, 1997, and
the recovery of sum of money as a result of the issuance of bouncing Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78 on July 21, 1997, prior to the adoption of
checks, and a criminal case for the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on September 16, 1997. Thus, at the time
violation. Thus, it ordered the dismissal of the civil action so as to of filing of Civil Case No. 97-82225 and Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78,
prevent double payment of the claim. The Court stated: the governing rule is Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court, to
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

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.Such civil action includes the recovery of
indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same
act or omission of the accused.
(8) Under the foregoing rule, an action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from an offense charged is necessarily included in the criminal proceedings,
unless (1) there is an express waiver of the civil action, or (2) there is a
reservation to institute a separate one, or (3) the civil action was filed prior
to the criminal complain
(9) Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action,
then Civil Case No. 97-82225 may proceed independently of Criminal Cases
Nos. 277576 to 78, and there is no forum shopping to speak of.
(10) 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

RATIONALE

(11) x x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure ] was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with
B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because
ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the
payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit
gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed
thereof.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

CO VS. MUNOZ (3) Undoubtedly, it governs the situations when the offended party opts to institute
the civil action separately from criminal action; hence its title “when separate
FACTS: civil action is suspended”
(4) Despite this wording, this governs all claims for civil liability ex declicto
1. The case springs from the statemets made by Munoz against petitioner Co in a
(5) This dual mode of enforcing civil liability ex delicto does not affect its nature, as
radio station
may be apparent from a reading of the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 120
2. Munoz was charged and arrested for perjury
of the ROC, which states:Section 2. Contents of the judgment. – x x x In case the
3. Co : Filed 3 criminal information of libel against Munoz
judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution
RTC Munoz Guilty absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his
CA Privileged Communication guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the
- Co is a public figure act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.(Emphasis
- Munoz was acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to establish ours)
actual malice (6) If, as Muñoz suggests, the extinction of the penal action carries with it the
Petitioner’s argument: extinction of the civil action that was instituted with the criminal action, then
Section 2, Rule 120 of the ROC becomes an irrelevant provision. There would be
4. He concedes that he may no longer appeal the criminal aspect because it no need for the judgment of the acquittal to determine whether "the act or
constitutes as double jeopardy ; he however claims for damages under Sec 2, omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist."
Rule 111  Extinction of penal action (x) carry with it the extinction of civil (7) The Rules precisely require the judgment to declare if there remains a basis to
action hold the accused civilly liable despite acquittal so that the offended party may
Respondent’s argument avail of the proper remedies to enforce his claim for civil liability ex delicto.
(8) In Ching v. Nicdao and CA,28 the Court ruled that an appeal is the proper
5. No reservation of right to separately institute civil action, extinction of criminal remedy that a party – whether the accused or the offended party – may avail with
liability = extinction of civil liability respect to the judgment:
6. Co did not reserve right to separately institute, therefore dismissal of criminal - If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders judgment on
action bars his claim for civil liability the civil aspect of the criminal case, the prosecution cannot appeal from the
judgment of acquittal as it would place the accused in double jeopardy.
ISSUE: - However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or the accused or both may
appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of the case within the period
WON PRIVATE PARTY MAY APPEAL JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL INSOFAR
therefor.
AS IT SEEKS TO ENFORCE CIVIL LIABILITY
(9) To reiterate, the extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it
HELD: the extinction of the civil action, whether the latter is instituted with or separately
from the criminal action. The offended party may still claim civil liability ex
(1) Private party may appeal judgment of acquittal insofar as he seeks to enforce civil delicto if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act
liability or omission from which the liability may arise exists. Jurisprudence has
GR: Extinction of Penal action (x) = Extinction of civil action enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the accused’s acquittal, the
EX: Civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a offended party may still claim civil liability
finding in a FINAL JUDGMENT in the criminal action that the
act/omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist IS CO LIABLE?
(2) Section 2 , Rule 111 applies to civil actions to claim civil liability from the
offense charged regardless if the action is instituted with or filed separately from, - In light of the priviledge nature of Munoz’ statements and the failure of the
criminal action, prosectionto prove malice in fact, there was no libel that was committed by
Munoz.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

- Without the crime, no civil liability ex delicto may be claimed by Co That can be
pursued in the present petition. There is no act from which civil liability may
arise that exists.
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
CASUPANAN V. LAROYA
FACTS:
1. As a result of a vehicular accident between two vehicles, one driven by Mario
Llavore Laroya and the other owned by Roberto Capitulo and driven by Avelino
Casupanan, two cases were filed before the MCTC of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya
filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting
in damage to property.
2. This case was on its preliminary investigation stage when Casupanan and
Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict.
3. However, upon motion of Laroya on the ground of forum-shopping, the MCTC
dismissed the civil case.
4. On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil
case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal
case.
5. Casupanan and Capitulo then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Capas, Tarlac.
6. But the RTC ruled that the order of dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final
order which disposes of the case and therefore, the proper remedy should have
been an appeal. Hence, Casupanan and Capitulo filed this petition.
Casupanan and Capitulo’s contention:
7. that if the accused in a criminal case has a counterclaim against the private
complainant, he may file the counterclaim in a separate civil action at the proper
time.
8. They contend that an action on quasi-delict is different from an action resulting
from the crime of reckless imprudence, and an accused in a criminal case can be
an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from the same incident.
9. They maintain that under Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil case
can proceed independently of the criminal action
10. Finally, they point out that Casupanan was not the only one who filed the
independent civil action based on quasi-delict but also Capitulo, the owner-
operator of the vehicle, who was not a party in the criminal case.
Laroya’s contention:
11. that the petition is fatally defective as it does not state the real antecedents.
12. Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo forfeited their right to
question the order of dismissal when they failed to avail of the proper remedy of
appeal.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
13. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be resolved as the order of
dismissal is already final and a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a
lapsed appeal.
ISSUE/HELD: WON an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless
imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil
action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.
AFFIRMATIVE
RATIO DICIDENDI:
(10) The Court held that the MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the
ground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-
94.
(11) The MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with
prejudice. Under the Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is without
prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states
that it is with prejudice.
(12) Thus, the MCTC's dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal
without prejudice. Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an
action without prejudice is not appealable.
(13) The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action under Rule
65. Clearly, the Capas RTC's order dismissing the petition for certiorari on
the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.
(14) Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed
the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
(15) Although these two actions arose from the same act or omission, they have
different causes of action. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal
punishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case is based on culpa
aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. And par 6,
sec 1 of Rule 111
(16) Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his
counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the
accused files such separate civil action.
(17) Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a
separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in
the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence.
(18) Also, the offended party is deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate
civil action before filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil
liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not yet commenced, the civil
action may be consolidated with the criminal action. The consolidation under this
CRIM PRO WEEK 4 DIGESTS
: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Aleezah Gertrude Regado

Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising from the same act or the prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run until the civil
omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code action for quasi-delict is filed.
(19) Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the (29) Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article
separate civil action, filed to recover damages ex-delicto, is suspended upon 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of
the filing of the criminal action. Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also this remedy which is independent of the criminal action.
prohibits the filing, after commencement of the criminal action, of a separate (30) To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while
civil action to recover damages ex-delicto refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due
(20) Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended 1985 process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.
Rules, expressly allows the "offended party" to bring an independent civil (31) Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and
action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Capitulo is proper.
(21) As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this civil action 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.
(22) There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the
present Rule 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may bring such an
action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for the same act
or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers
to the offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused
(23) Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission.
The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto
is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict — without
violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed
simultaneously and independently of each other.
(24) The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the
civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In most
cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action since he
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused.
(25) In some instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of
another case against his employer or guardians.
(26) Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or
omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in
paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim
of the accused "may be litigated in a separate civil action."
(27) This is only fair for two reasons. First, the accused is prohibited from setting up
any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case.
(28) The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against the
offended party. If the accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict,