Elcano v.

Hill and Hill

G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977, 77 SCRA

Facts:

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal
complaint was instituted against him but he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not
criminal, because of lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a
complaint for recovery of damages against defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time
of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting
subsistence, for the same killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of
First Instance of Quezon City denied the motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was finally
dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1. WoN the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case.
2. Whether Reginald’s emancipation by marriage would free Atty. Hill, the father of
Reginald, on his civil liability under Article 2180.

Ruling:

1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal
case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is
sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case for damages
on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal act. As such
the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for
quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.
2. No. While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Article 2180 applies
to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. However,
inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of
Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.

Doctrine:

ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.