D AYAP

VS
SENDIONG

TOPIC: THE CIVIL ASPECT

BY: R U D E J A N E TA N

FACTS
An Information was filed charging herein petitioner Jeffrey Reso Dayap with
the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide, Less Serious
Physical Injuries, and Damage to Property.
Petitioner allegedly drove in a reckless and imprudent manner a 10-wheeler
cargo truck, thereby hitting an automobile, a Colt Galant, driven by Lou
Gene R. Sendiong who was with two female passengers, namely:
Dexie Duran, and
Elvie Sy

The collision resulted in the:

Death of said Lou Gene R. Sendiong,;
Less serious physical injuries on the bodies of Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy; and
Extensive damage to the above-mentioned Colt Galant

FACTS
Trial commenced and after the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner
sought leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which was granted.
Petitioner filed his Demurrer to Evidence grounded on the prosecutions
failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is criminally liable for
reckless imprudence.
MTC granted the demurrer and acquitted petitioner, finding:
That the evidence presented by respondents failed to establish the allegations in
the information; and
That on the contrary, the prosecutions evidence conclusively show that the
swerving of the Colt Galant to the lane of the cargo truck is the proximate cause
of the accident.

FACTS
The MTC also held that:
Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things:

The fact of the crime,i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands
charged, and

The fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.

The prosecution has miserably failed to prove these two things.

When the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, an
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC, alleging:

That the MTCs dismissal of the case was done without considering the evidence adduced by
the prosecution;
That the MTC failed to observe the manner in which the trial of the case should proceed as
provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court;
That the MTC failed to rule on the civil liability of the accused in spite of the
evidence presented.

FACTS
RTC affirmed the acquittal of petitioner but ordered the remand of the case
to the MTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect of the case.
Respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
which ruled that there being no proof of the total value of the properties
damaged, the criminal case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC and the
proceedings before the MTC are null and void.
The CA ordered the remand of the case to the RTC.
Hence, the present petition for review.

ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in ordering the remand of
the case on the matter of civil liability for
reception of evidence. (YES)

RULING
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
liability where:
The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;
The court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and
The civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which
the accused is acquitted.

However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if

there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the
accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
A scrutiny of the MTCs decision supports the conclusionthat the acquittal was based
on the findings that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist and that petitioner did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him; hence,
petitioners civil liability has been extinguished by his acquittal.

RULING
The MTC categorically stated:
That it cannot find any evidence which would prove that a crime had been
committed and that accused was the person responsible for it.
That the prosecution failed to establish that it was petitioner who committed the
crime as charged since its witnesses never identified petitioner as the one who
was driving the cargo truck at the time of the incident.
That the proximate cause of the accident is the damage to the rear portion of
the truck caused by the swerving of the Colt Galant into the rear left portion of
the cargo truck and not the reckless driving of the truck by petitioner, clearly
establishing that petitioner is not guilty of reckless imprudence.

Consequently, there is no more need to remand the case to the trial court
for proceedings on the civil aspect of the case, since petitioners acquittal
has extinguished his civil liability.

DECISION
Petition is GRANTED
CA decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
MTC decision REINSTATED and AFFIRMED