G.R. No. 112381 March 20, 1995 ISABELO APA, MANUEL APA and LEONILO JACALAN, petitioners, vs.

HON. RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ, HON. CELSO V. ESPINOSA, and SPS. FELIXBERTO TIGOL, JR. and ROSITA TAGHOY TIGOL, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.: This is a special civil action of certiorari to set aside orders of respondent Judge Rumoldo R. Fernandez of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, at Lapu-Lapu City, denying petitioners oral motion for the suspension of their arraignment in Criminal Case No. 012489, entitled: "People of the Philippines v. Isabelo Apa; Manuel Apa and Leonilo Jacalan," as well as their motion for reconsideration. Criminal Case No. 012489 is a prosecution for violation of P.D. 772 otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting Law. The information alleges: That on February 1990, or prior thereto, in Agus, Lapulapu City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [herein petitioners Isabelo Apa, Manuel Apa and Dionisio Jacalan], conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another, without the knowledge and consent of the owner, ROSITA TIGOL, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take advantage of the absence or tolerance of the said owner by occupying or possessing a portion of her real property, Lot No. 3635-B of Opon Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13250, situated in Agus Lapulapu City, whereon they constructed their respective residential houses against the will of Rosita Tigol, which acts of the said accused have deprived the latter of the use of a portion of her land, to her damage and prejudice because despite repeated demands the said accused failed and refused, as they still fail and refuse to vacate the premises above-mentioned. Petitioners moved for the suspension of their arraignment on the ground that there was a prejudicial question pending resolution in another case being tried in Branch 27 of the same court. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2247-L and entitled "Anselmo Taghoy and Vicente Apa versus Felixberto Tigol, Jr. and Rosita T. Tigol, et al.," concerns the ownership of Lot No. 3635-B. 1 In that case, petitioners seek a declaration of the nullity of TCT No. 13250 of Rosita T. Tigol and the partition of the lot in question among them and private respondent Rosita T. Tigol as heirs of Filomeno and Rita Taghoy. The case had been filed in 1990 by petitioners, three years before May 27, 1993 when the criminal case for squatting was filed against them.

On August 25, 1993, the trial court denied the petitioners' motion and proceeded with their arraignment. Petitioners, therefore, had to enter their plea (not guilty) to the charge. On September 2, 1993, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the court in its order dated September 21, 1993. Hence, this petition. The only issue in this case is whether the question of ownership of Lot No. 3635-B, which was pending, in Civil Case No. 2247-L, is a prejudicial question justifying suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case against petitioners. We hold that it is. A prejudicial question is a question which is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that its resolution is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. To justify suspension of the criminal action, it must appear not only that the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution is based but also that the decision of the issue or issues raised in the civil case would be decisive of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 2 Rule 111, 5 provides: Sec. 6. Elements of prejudicial question. The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In the criminal case, the question is whether petitioners occupied a piece of land not belonging to them but to private respondent and against the latter's will. As already noted, the information alleges that "without the knowledge and consent of the owner, ROSITA TIGOL" petitioners occupied or took possession of a portion of "herproperty" by building their houses thereon and "deprived [her] of the use of portion of her land to her damage and prejudice. Now the ownership of the land in question, known as Lot 3635-B of the Opon cadastre covered by TCT No. 13250, is the issue in Civil Case 2247-L now pending in Branch 27 of the RTC at Lapulapu City. The resolution, therefore, of this question would necessarily be determinative of petitioners criminal liability for squatting. In fact it appears that on February 23, 1994, the court trying the civil case rendered a decision nullifying TCT No. 13250 of private respondent and her husband and declared the lot in question to be owned in common by the spouses and the petitioners as inheritance from their parents Filomeno and Rita Taghoy. While private respondents claim that the decision in that case is not yet final because they have filed a motion for new trial, the point is that whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the question of ownership, such resolution will be determinative of the guilt or innocence of petitioners in the criminal case. Surely, if petitioners are co-owners of the lot in question, they cannot be found guilty of

squatting because they are as much entitled to the use and occupation of the land as are the private respondent Rosita T. Tigol and her family. 3 Private respondents argues that even the owner of a piece of a land can be ejected from his property since the only issue in such a case is the right to its physical possession. Consequently, they contend, he can also be prosecuted under the Anti-Squatting Law. The contention misses the case is the essential point that the owner of a piece of land can be ejected only if for some reason, e.g., he has let his property to the plaintiff, he has given up its temporary possession. But in the case at bar, no such agreement is asserted by private respondent. Rather private respondent claims the right to possession based on her claim of ownership. Ownership is thus the pivotal question. Since this is the question in the civil case, the proceedings in the criminal case must in the meantime be suspended. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and respondent judge is ordered to SUSPEND the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 012489 until the question of ownership in Civil Case No. 2247-L has been resolved with finality and thereafter proceed with the trial of the criminal case if the civil case is decided and terminated adversely against petitioners. Otherwise he should dismiss the criminal case. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-63198 June 21, 1990 VICENTE S. UMALI, BENJAMIN CALLEJA, JR., ALBERTO L. LEDESMA and EVANGELINE U. LEDESMA,petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND SPOUSES HONORIO and SOLINA EDANO,respondents. Vicente A. Garcia for petitioners. Edano, Leynes Law Office for private respondents.

PADILLA, J.: This petition seeks the review on certiorari of the decision * dated 23 September 1982 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14504, affirming the Orders dated 29 April 1982 and 24 June 1982 issued in Criminal Case No. 1423-I by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales, Branch II (now Regional Trial Court, (RTC), Iba, Zambales, Branch LXIX). ** The respondent court's decision ruled that the question raised in Civil Case No. 8769 pending before the CFI of Quezon, Branch VIII (now RTC, Quezon, Branch

LVII) re: annulment/ rescission of the sale 1 is not prejudicial to the issues involved in said CR No. 1423-I as to warrant the suspension of proceedings in said criminal case. The facts material to the present case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: ... Petitioners are the officers of the Orosea Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to simply as OROSEA. Sometime on September 4,1979, the petitioners, as officers of OROSEA, purchased from the spouses Honorio and Solina Edano, Lot No. 49 of the Cadastral Survey of Mulanay, Bo. Casay, Mulanay, Province of Quezon, covered by TCT No. RT-(T-36471), in the name of spouses Edano, for the sum of P1,036,500.00 payable in four installments, as follows:
1st

Installment and downpayment 2nd Installment 3rd Installment 4th Installment

September 28, 1979 - March 31, 1980 September 30, 1980 - March 31, 1981

P225,000.00

271,500.00 270,000.00

270,000.00

issuing for this purpose four checks drawn against the Chartered Bank, Manila Branch. The first check for P225,000.00 was honored upon its presentment. By arrangement of the petitioners with the Edano spouses, a deed of absolute sale was executed by the vendors, inspire of the fact that the purchase price has not yet been Idly paid. Thus, TCT No. (T36471) was cancelled and a new transfer certificate of title was issued in the name of OROSEA. Thereafter, OROSEA secured a loan of P1,000,000.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank using this property as security. When the check for the second installment fell due, petitioners asked, for two times, deferment of its presentation for payment, the first to June 30, 1980, and the second to July 31, 1980. In the first deferment petitioners issued a check that matured on June 30, 1980 to replace the check that matured on March 31, 1980. On the second deferment petitioners issued another check dated July 31, 1980 to replace the check dated June 30, 1980. This second renewal check was presented with the bank but it was dishonored due to

lack of funds. So were the checks postdated September 30, 1980 and March 31, 1981. They were also dishonored upon their presentment for lack of funds. As a consequence of the dishonor of these checks, the Edano spouses filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners. The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioners on May 21, 1981, and it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1423-I. Arraignment was set on September 4, 1981 but petitioners failed to appear. It was reset to October 5, 1981 but this was postponed upon motion of petitioners. On October 14, 1981, OROSEA filed a Complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon against the Edano spouses, docketed as Civil Case No. 8769, for the annulment/rescission of the Contract of Sale executed on September 4, 1979 by and between OROSEA and the Edano spouses covering Lot No. 49 of the Cadastral Survey of Mulanay, and for which the petitioners issued the checks, subject of Criminal Case No. 1423-1. Criminal Case No. 1423-I was again set for arraignment on November 5, 1980. This was postponed. With the entry of a new counsel, petitioners filed a motion to quash Criminal Case No. 1423-I, on ground of improper venue, but this motion was withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. The arraignment was again set for January 4, 1982 which was again postponed; then to February 5, 1982, again postponed; then to March 23, 1982. However, before March 23, 1982, petitioners filed, in Criminal Case No. 1423-I, a 'Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings, with a Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings'. This was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon. Resolving the motion to suspend, respondent Judge issued his orders, now under question, denying the motion. 2 Acting on the "Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings," the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch II, in said CR Case No. 1423-1 in its order dated 29 April 1982 3 denied the same for lack of merit; and the motion for reconsideration of said order was likewise denied in the Order dated 24 June l982. 4 A petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 14504, was then filed by herein petitioners with the respondent Court of Appeals. The appellate court, resolving the said petition, rendered the now assailed decision dated 23 September 1982 affirming the questioned orders of the trial court and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals ruled that, inasmuch as the issues in CV No. 8769 and CR No. 1423-I are completely different from each other, and that the resolution of one is not necessary for the resolution of the other, the issue involved in CV No. 8769 is not a prejudicial question vis-avis the issue in CR No. 1423-I so as to warrant the suspension of the proceedings in the latter case, until the termination of the civil case. In its resolution dated 3 February 1983, the Court of Appeals also denied for lack of merit the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the said decision.

In this present recourse, the principal issue to be resolved, as in the Court of Appeals, is whether CV No. 8769 involves a prejudicial question in relation to CR No. 1423-I so as to require a suspension of proceedings in the latter case, until the civil case is disposed of. We find no merit in the petition. In arguing that the principle of prejudicial question applies in the case at bar, petitioners contend that, since in CV No. 8769 they seek to annul the deed of sale executed in their favor by the private respondents, on the grounds that the latter committed fraud in misrepresenting that the land they sold to petitioners is free from all liens and encumbrances, and that it is not tenanted, when in truth and fact, as petitioners later discovered, the land is covered by the land reform program and that vast portions thereof are timber land, hence, allegedly indisposable public land, therefore, according to petitioners, CV No. 8769 involves issues, the resolution of which will determine whether or not petitioners are criminally liable in CR No. 1423-I. They further argue that, if and when the court hearing CV No. 7869 annuls the subject deed of sale, then, their obligation to pay private respondents under the said deed would be extinguished, resulting in the dismissal of CR No. 1423-I. Petitioners, therefore, in CV No. 8969, in seeking the annulment of the deed of sale on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, are in effect saying that said deed is voidable, vitiated consent being one of the grounds mentioned in Article 1390 5 of the Civil Code for voiding or annulling contracts. Indeed the well-settled rule is that a contract where consent is vitiated is voidable. 6 It can not be denied, however, that at the time the acts complained of in CR No. 1423-I were committed, the deed of sale sought to be later annulled in CV No. 8769 was binding upon the parties thereto, including the petitioners. The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial question to exist are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 7 Given the nature of a prejudicial question, and considering the issues raised in CV No. 8769 and CR No. 1423-I, we agree with the ruling of the respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution of the issues in CV No. 8769 is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners-accused in CR No. 1423-I, hence, no prejudicial question is involved between the said two (2) cases. As correctly observed by the appellate court, the issue in CR No. 1423-I is whether or not the petitioners could be found guilty under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 8 or under Article 315, No. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. 9 More specifically, what private respondents complained of in CR No. 1423-I is that the checks issued by petitioners in their favor were dishonored for lack of funds upon due presentment to the drawee bank. Undeniably, at the time of said dishonor, petitioners' obligation to pay private respondents pursuant to the deed of sale, continued to subsist.

And because petitioners' checks were dishonored for lack of funds, petitioners are answerable under the law for the consequences of their said acts. And even if CV No. 8769 were to be finally adjudged to the effect that the said deed of sale should be annulled, such declararion would be of no material importance in the determination of the guilt or innocence of petitioners-accused in CR No. 1423-I. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated 23 September 1982 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 14504 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988 RICARDO QUIAMBAO, petitioner, vs. HON. ADRIANO OSORIO, ZENAIDA GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA GAZA BERNARDO, and FELIPE GAZA, respondents-appellees, LAND AUTHORITY, intervenor-appellant.

FERNAN, J.: This case was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals as one involving pure questions of law pursuant to Section 3, Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. The antecedents are as follows: In a complaint for forcible entry filed by herein private respondents Zenaida Gaza Buensucero, Justina Gaza Bernardo and Felipe Gaza against herein petitioner Ricardo Quiambao before the then Municipal Court of Malabon, Rizal, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 2526, it was alleged that private respondents were the legitimate possessors of a 30,835 sq. m. lot known as Lot No. 4, Block 12, Bca 2039 of the Longos Estate situated at Barrio Longos, Malabon Rizal, by virtue of the Agreement to Sell No. 3482 executed in their favor by the former Land Tenure Administration [which later became the Land Authority, then the Department of Agrarian Reform]; that under cover of darkness, petitioner surreptitiously and by force, intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered into a 400 sq. m. portion thereof, placed bamboo posts "staka" over said portion and thereafter began the construction of a house thereon; and that these acts of petitioner, which were unlawful per se, entitled private respondents to a writ of preliminary injunction and to the ejectment of petitioner from the lot in question.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon denial thereof, filed his Answer to the complaint, specifically denying the material allegations therein and averring that the Agreement upon which private respondents base their prior possession over the questioned lot had already been cancelled by the Land Authority in an Order signed by its Governor, Conrado Estrella. By way of affirmative defense and as a ground for dismissing the case, petitioner alleged the pendency of L.A. Case No. 968, an administrative case before the Office of the Land Authority between the same parties and involving the same piece of land. In said administrative case, petitioner disputed private respondents' right of possession over the property in question by reason of the latter's default in the installment payments for the purchase of said lot. Petitioner asserted that his administrative case was determinative of private respondents' right to eject petitioner from the lot in question; hence a prejudicial question which bars a judicial action until after its termination. After hearing, the municipal court denied the motion to dismiss contained in petitioner's affirmative defenses. It ruled that inasmuch as the issue involved in the case was the recovery of physical possession, the court had jurisdiction to try and hear the case. Dissatisfied with this ruling, petitioner filed before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XII, Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-1576 a petition for certiorari with injunction against public respondent Judge Adriano Osorio of the Municipal Court of Malabon and private respondents, praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction ordering respondent judge to suspend the hearing in the ejectment case until after the resolution of said petition. As prayed for, the then CFI of Rizal issued a restraining order enjoining further proceedings in the ejectment case. In his answer, respondent municipal judge submitted himself to the sound discretion of the CFI in the disposition of the petition for certiorari. Private respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition, maintaining that the administrative case did not constitute a prejudicial question as it involved the question of ownership, unlike the ejectment case which involved merely the question of possession. Meanwhile, the Land Authority filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene in Civil Case No. C-1576 alleging the pendency of an administrative case between the same parties on the same subject matter in L.A. Case No. 968 and praying that the petition for certiorari be granted, the ejectment complaint be dismissed and the Office of the Land Authority be allowed to decide the matter exclusively. Finding the issue involved in the ejectment case to be one of prior possession, the CFI dismissed the petition for certiorari and lifted the restraining order previously issued. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, adopted in toto by Intervenor Land Authority was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal filed by petitioner Quiambao and intervenor Land Authority with the Court of Appeals, and certified to Us as aforesaid. The instant controversy boils down to the sole question of whether or not the administrative case between the private parties involving the lot subject matter of the

ejectment case constitutes a prejudicial question which would operate as a bar to said ejectment case. A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. 1 The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination of the former. The essential elements of a prejudicial question as provided under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court are: [a] the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action; and [b] the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The actions involved in the case at bar being respectively civil and administrative in character, it is obvious that technically, there is no prejudicial question to speak of. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate correlation between said two [2] proceedings, stemming from the fact that the right of private respondents to eject petitioner from the disputed portion depends primarily on the resolution of the pending administrative case. For while it may be true that private respondents had prior possession of the lot in question, at the time of the institution of the ejectment case, such right of possession had been terminated, or at the very least, suspended by the cancellation by the Land Authority of the Agreement to Sell executed in their favor. Whether or not private respondents can continue to exercise their right of possession is but a necessary, logical consequence of the issue involved in the pending administrative case assailing the validity of the cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award of the disputed portion to petitioner. If the cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award to petitioner are voided, then private respondents would have every right to eject petitioner from the disputed area. Otherwise, private respondent's light of possession is lost and so would their right to eject petitioner from said portion. Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent course for the trial court to have taken is to hold the ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic and pragmatism, if not jurisprudence, dictate such move. To allow the parties to undergo trial notwithstanding the possibility of petitioner's right of possession being upheld in the pending administrative case is to needlessly require not only the parties but the court as well to expend time, effort and money in what may turn out to be a sheer exercise in futility. Thus, 1 Am Jur 2d tells us: The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide the outcome of another pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power

inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Where the rights parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled the second action should be stayed. 2 While this rule is properly applicable to instances involving two [2] court actions, the existence in the instant case of the same considerations of Identity of parties and issues, economy of time and effort for the court, the counsels and the parties as well as the need to resolve the parties' right of possession before the ejectment case may be properly determined, justifies the rule's analogous application to the case at bar. Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Celdran, et al., 19 SCRA 502, provides another analogous situation. In sustaining the assailed order of the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental ordering the suspension of the criminal case for falsification of public document against several persons, among them the subscribing officer Santiago Catane until the civil case involving the issue of the genuineness of the alleged forged document shall have been decided, this Court cited as a reason therefor its own action on the administrative charges against said Santiago Catane, as follows: It should be mentioned here also that an administrative case filed in this Court against Santiago Catane upon the same charge was held by Us in abeyance, thus: "As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly forged by respondent attorneys in Administrative Case No. 77 [Richard Ignacio Celdran vs. Santiago Catane, etc., et al.] is necessarily involved in Civil Case No. R-3397 of the Cebu Court of First Instance, action on the herein complaint is withheld until that litigation has finally been decided. Complainant Celdran shall inform the Court about such decision." 3 If a pending civil case may be considered to be in the nature of a prejudicial question to an administrative case, We see no reason why the reverse may not be so considered in the proper case, such as in the petition at bar. Finally, events occuring during the pendency of this petition attest to the wisdom of the conclusion herein reached. For in the Manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner, it was stated that the intervenor Land Authority which later became the Department of Agrarian Reform had promulgated a decision in the administrative case, L.A. Case No. 968 affiriming the cancellation of Agreement to Sell No. 3482 issued in favor of private respondents. With this development, the folly of allowing the ejectment case to proceed is too evident to need further elaboration. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Civil Case No. 2526 of the then Municipal Court of Malabon, Rizal is hereby ordered DISMISSED. No Costs. SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.: In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16, RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991 in a decision penned by Judge Manuel E. Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged. In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accusedappellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case ofPeople v. Sendaydiego 1 insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based. Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia 2 which held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered. We are thus confronted with a single issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability?

In the aforementioned case of People v. Castillo, this issue was settled in the affirmative. This same issue posed therein was phrased thus: Does the death of Alfredo Castillo affect both his criminal responsibility and his civil liability as a consequence of the alleged crime? It resolved this issue thru the following disquisition: Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the controlling statute. It reads, in part: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; With reference to Castillo's criminal liability, there is no question. The law is plain. Statutory construction is unnecessary. Said liability is extinguished. The civil liability, however, poses a problem. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Saddled upon us is the task of ascertaining the legal import of the term "final judgment." Is it final judgment as contradistinguished from an interlocutory order? Or, is it a judgment which is final and executory? We go to the genesis of the law. The legal precept contained in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code heretofore transcribed is lifted from Article 132 of the Spanish El Codigo Penal de 1870 which, in part, recites: La responsabilidad penal se extingue. 1. Por la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penas personales siempre, y respecto a las pecuniarias, solo cuando a su fallecimiento no hubiere recaido sentencia firme. xxx xxx xxx The code of 1870 . . . it will be observed employs the term "sentencia firme." What is "sentencia firme" under the old statute? XXVIII Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola, p. 473, furnishes the ready answer: It says: SENTENCIA FIRME. La sentencia que adquiere la fuerza de las definitivas por no haberse utilizado por las partes litigantes

recurso alguno contra ella dentro de los terminos y plazos legales concedidos al efecto. "Sentencia firme" really should be understood as one which is definite. Because, it is only when judgment is such that, as Medina y Maranon puts it, the crime is confirmed "en condena determinada;" or, in the words of Groizard, the guilt of the accused becomes "una verdad legal." Prior thereto, should the accused die, according to Viada, "no hay legalmente, en tal caso, ni reo, ni delito, ni responsabilidad criminal de ninguna clase." And, as Judge Kapunan well explained, when a defendant dies before judgment becomes executory, "there cannot be any determination by final judgment whether or not the felony upon which the civil action might arise exists," for the simple reason that "there is no party defendant." (I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code, Annotated, p. 421. Senator Francisco holds the same view. Francisco, Revised Penal Code, Book One, 2nd ed., pp. 859-860) The legal import of the term "final judgment" is similarly reflected in the Revised Penal Code. Articles 72 and 78 of that legal body mention the term "final judgment" in the sense that it is already enforceable. This also brings to mind Section 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court which states that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final "after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal." By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here collected funnel down to one positive conclusion: The term final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him. Not that the meaning thus given to final judgment is without reason. For where, as in this case, the right to institute a separate civil action is not reserved, the decision to be rendered must, of necessity, cover "both the criminal and the civil aspects of the case." People vs. Yusico (November 9, 1942), 2 O.G., No. 100, p. 964. See also: People vs. Moll, 68 Phil., 626, 634; Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1958 ed., Vol. I, pp. 234, 236. Correctly, Judge Kapunan observed that as "the civil action is based solely on the felony committed and of which the offender might be found guilty, the death of the offender extinguishes the civil liability." I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code, Annotated, supra. Here is the situation obtaining in the present case: Castillo's criminal liability is out. His civil liability is sought to be enforced by reason of that criminal liability. But then, if we dismiss, as we must, the criminal action and let the civil aspect remain, we will be faced with the anomalous situation whereby we will be called upon to clamp civil liability in a case where the source

thereof criminal liability does not exist. And, as was well stated in Bautista, et al. vs. Estrella, et al., CA-G.R. No. 19226-R, September 1, 1958, "no party can be found and held criminally liable in a civil suit," which solely would remain if we are to divorce it from the criminal proceeding." This ruling of the Court of Appeals in the Castillo case 3 was adopted by the Supreme Court in the cases ofPeople of the Philippines v. Bonifacio Alison, et al., 4 People of the Philippines v. Jaime Jose, et al. 5 and People of the Philippines v. Satorre 6 by dismissing the appeal in view of the death of the accused pending appeal of said cases. As held by then Supreme Court Justice Fernando in the Alison case: The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having been established, and considering that there is as yet no final judgment in view of the pendency of the appeal, the criminal and civil liability of the said accused-appellant Alison was extinguished by his death (Art. 89, Revised Penal Code; Reyes' Criminal Law, 1971 Rev. Ed., p. 717, citing People v. Castillo and Ofemia C.A., 56 O.G. 4045); consequently, the case against him should be dismissed. On the other hand, this Court in the subsequent cases of Buenaventura Belamala v. Marcelino Polinar 7 andLamberto Torrijos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals 8 ruled differently. In the former, the issue decided by this court was: Whether the civil liability of one accused of physical injuries who died before final judgment is extinguished by his demise to the extent of barring any claim therefore against his estate. It was the contention of the administrator-appellant therein that the death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, in view of Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. However, this court ruled therein: We see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been extinguished, in view of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) that became operative eighteen years after the revised Penal Code. As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of the Civil Code establishes a civil action for damages on account of physical injuries, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's civil action for damages was to be considered instituted together with the criminal action still, since both proceedings were terminated without final adjudication, the

civil action of the offended party under Article 33 may yet be enforced separately. In Torrijos, the Supreme Court held that: xxx xxx xxx It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89, only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. Stated differently, where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto extinguishes the former, provided, of course, that death supervenes before final judgment. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. (Emphasis ours) xxx xxx xxx In the above case, the court was convinced that the civil liability of the accused who was charged with estafa could likewise trace its genesis to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code since said accused had swindled the first and second vendees of the property subject matter of the contract of sale. It therefore concluded: "Consequently, while the death of the accused herein extinguished his criminal liability including fine, his civil liability based on the laws of human relations remains." Thus it allowed the appeal to proceed with respect to the civil liability of the accused, notwithstanding the extinction of his criminal liability due to his death pending appeal of his conviction. To further justify its decision to allow the civil liability to survive, the court relied on the following ratiocination: Since Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 9 requires the dismissal of all money claims against the defendant whose death occurred prior to the final judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI), then it can be inferred that actions for recovery of money may continue to be heard on appeal, when the death of the defendant supervenes after the CFI had rendered its judgment. In such case, explained this tribunal, "the name of the offended party shall be included in the title of the case as plaintiff-appellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the deceased-accused should be substituted as defendants-appellants." It is, thus, evident that as jurisprudence evolved from Castillo to Torrijos, the rule established was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on sources of obligations other than delict. Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also extinguished together with the criminal action if it were solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto.

However, the Supreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego, et al. 10 departed from this longestablished principle of law. In this case, accused Sendaydiego was charged with and convicted by the lower court of malversation thru falsification of public documents. Sendaydiego's death supervened during the pendency of the appeal of his conviction. This court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss Sendaydiego's appeal but only to the extent of his criminal liability. His civil liability was allowed to survive although it was clear that such claim thereon was exclusively dependent on the criminal action already extinguished. The legal import of such decision was for the court to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the entire appeal, passing upon the correctness of Sendaydiego's conviction despite dismissal of the criminal action, for the purpose of determining if he is civilly liable. In doing so, this Court issued a Resolution of July 8, 1977 stating thus: The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil liability survived Sendaydiego because his death occurred after final judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which convicted him of three complex crimes of malversation through falsification and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total sum of P61,048.23 (should be P57,048.23). The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action in the absence of express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court). The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action (People and Manuel vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287; Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8). When the action is for the recovery of money and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be continued on appeal (Torrijos vs. Court of Appeals, L-40336, October 24, 1975; 67 SCRA 394). The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the funds improperly disbursed although he has no criminal liability (U.S. vs. Elvina, 24 Phil. 230; Philippine National Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil. 583). In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased Sendaydiego insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, the Court Resolved to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over his possible civil liability for the money claims of the Province of Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal case had been instituted against him, thus making applicable, in determining his civil liability, Article

30 of the Civil Code . . . and, for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this Court within ten (10) days of the names and addresses of the decedent's heirs or whether or not his estate is under administration and has a duly appointed judicial administrator. Said heirs or administrator will be substituted for the deceased insofar as the civil action for the civil liability is concerned (Secs. 16 and 17, Rule 3, Rules of Court). Succeeding cases 11 raising the identical issue have maintained adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego; in other words, they were a reaffirmance of our abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liability solely anchored on the criminal (civil liability ex delicto) is extinguished upon dismissal of the entire appeal due to the demise of the accused. But was it judicious to have abandoned this old ruling? A re-examination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us to revert to the old ruling. To restate our resolution of July 8, 1977 in Sendaydiego: The resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action can proceed irrespective of the latter's extinction due to death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, pursuant to Article 30 of the Civil Code and Section 21, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. Article 30 of the Civil Code provides: When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of. Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text is there a grant of authority to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil liability ex delictowhen his death supervenes during appeal. What Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the quantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidence and not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing or invoking Article 30 to justify the survival of the civil action despite extinction of the criminal would in effect merely beg the question of whether civil liability ex delicto survives upon extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused during appeal of his conviction. This is because whether asserted in the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is clear on this matter: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; xxx xxx xxx However, the ruling in Sendaydiego deviated from the expressed intent of Article 89. It allowed claims for civil liability ex delicto to survive by ipso facto treating the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal, as one filed under Article 30, as though no criminal proceedings had been filed but merely a separate civil action. This had the effect of converting such claims from one which is dependent on the outcome of the criminal action to an entirely new and separate one, the prosecution of which does not even necessitate the filing of criminal proceedings. 12One would be hard put to pinpoint the statutory authority for such a transformation. It is to be borne in mind that in recovering civil liability ex delicto, the same has perforce to be determined in the criminal action, rooted as it is in the court's pronouncement of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This is but to render fealty to the intendment of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." In such cases, extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused pending appeal inevitably signifies the concomitant extinction of the civil liability. Mors Omnia Solvi. Death dissolves all things. In sum, in pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final determination of the criminal liability is a condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil action, such that when the criminal action is extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability springs out of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977, however, failed to take note of this fundamental distinction when it allowed the survival of the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by treating the same as a separate civil action referred to under Article 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil action to an independent one such as that contemplated under Article 30. Ironically however, the main decision in Sendaydiego did not apply Article 30, the resolution of July 8, 1977 notwithstanding. Thus, it was held in the main decision: Sendaydiego's appeal will be resolved only for the purpose of showing his criminal liability which is the basis of the civil liability for which his estate would be liable. 13 In other words, the Court, in resolving the issue of his civil liability, concomitantly made a determination on whether Sendaydiego, on the basis of evidenced adduced, was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the offense charged. Thus, it upheld

Sendaydiego's conviction and pronounced the same as the source of his civil liability. Consequently, although Article 30 was not applied in the final determination of Sendaydiego's civil liability, there was a reopening of the criminal action already extinguished which served as basis for Sendaydiego's civil liability. We reiterate: Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was also invoked to serve as another basis for the Sendaydiegoresolution of July 8, 1977. In citing Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court made the inference that civil actions of the type involved in Sendaydiego consist of money claims, the recovery of which may be continued on appeal if defendant dies pending appeal of his conviction by holding his estate liable therefor. Hence, the Court's conclusion: "When the action is for the recovery of money" "and the defendant dies before final judgment in the court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided" in Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be continued on appeal. Sadly, reliance on this provision of law is misplaced. From the standpoint of procedural law, this course taken inSendaydiego cannot be sanctioned. As correctly observed by Justice Regalado: xxx xxx xxx I do not, however, agree with the justification advanced in both Torrijos and Sendaydiego which, relying on the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, drew the strained implication therefrom that where the civil liability instituted together with the criminal liabilities had already passed beyond the judgment of the then Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), the Court of Appeals can continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereover despite the extinguishment of the component criminal liability of the deceased. This pronouncement, which has been followed in the Court's judgments subsequent and consonant to Torrijos and Sendaydiego, should be set aside and abandoned as being clearly erroneous and unjustifiable. Said Section 21 of Rule 3 is a rule of civil procedure in ordinary civil actions. There is neither authority nor justification for its application in criminal procedure to civil actions instituted together with and as part of criminal actions. Nor is there any authority in law for the summary conversion from

the latter category of an ordinary civil action upon the death of the offender. . .. Moreover, the civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal proceeding for recovery of civil liability ex delicto can hardly be categorized as an ordinary money claim such as that referred to in Sec. 21, Rule 3 enforceable before the estate of the deceased accused. Ordinary money claims referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 must be viewed in light of the provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 involving claims against the estate, which in Sendaydiego was held liable for Sendaydiego's civil liability. "What are contemplated in Section 21 of Rule 3, in relation to Section 5 of Rule 86, 14 are contractual money claims while the claims involved in civil liability ex delicto may include even the restitution of personal or real property." 15Section 5, Rule 86 provides an exclusive enumeration of what claims may be filed against the estate. These are: funeral expenses, expenses for the last illness, judgments for money and claim arising from contracts, expressed or implied. It is clear that money claims arising from delict do not form part of this exclusive enumeration. Hence, there could be no legal basis in (1) treating a civil action ex delicto as an ordinary contractual money claim referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and (2) allowing it to survive by filing a claim therefor before the estate of the deceased accused. Rather, it should be extinguished upon extinction of the criminal action engendered by the death of the accused pending finality of his conviction. Accordingly, we rule: if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, he must subject to Section 1, Rule 111 16 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised determines against whom the same shall be enforced. If the same act or omission complained of also arises from quasi-delict or may, by provision of law, result in an injury to person or property (real or personal), the separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator 17 of the estate of the accused pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court: Sec. 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him. This is in consonance with our ruling in Belamala 18 where we held that, in recovering damages for injury to persons thru an independent civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code, the same must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of deceased accused and not against the estate under Sec. 5, Rule 86 because this rule explicitly limits the claim to those for funeral expenses, expenses for the last sickness of the

decedent, judgment for money and claims arising from contract, express or implied. Contractual money claims, we stressed, refers only to purely personal obligations other than those which have their source in delict or tort. Conversely, if the same act or omission complained of also arises from contract, the separate civil action must be filed against the estate of the accused, pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. 19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law 20 b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) . . . e) Quasi-delicts 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 115521 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.22

Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. WHEREFORE, the appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is DISMISSED with costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Cruz, J., is on leave. G.R. No. L-51183 December 21, 1983 CARMEN L. MADEJA, petitioner, vs. HON. FELIX T. CARO and EVA ARELLANO-JAPZON, respondents. Ernesto P. Miel for petitioner. Gorgonio T. Alvarez for respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:+.wph!1 In Criminal Case No. 75-88 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, DR. EVA A. JAPZON is accused of homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto Madeja after an appendectomy. The complaining witness is the widow of the deceased, Carmen L. Madeja. The information states that: "The offended party Carmen L. Madeja reserving her right to file a separate civil action for damages." (Rollo, p. 36.) The criminal case still pending, Carmen L. Madeja sued Dr. Eva A. Japzon for damages in Civil Case No. 141 of the same court. She alleged that her husband died because of the gross negligence of Dr. Japzon. The respondent judge granted the defendant's motion to dismiss which motion invoked Section 3(a) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads:t.hqw Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. In all cases not included in the preceding section the following rules shall be observed: (a) Criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action can not be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. ...

According to the respondent judge, "under the foregoing Sec. 3 (a), Rule 111, New Rules of Court, the instant civil action may be instituted only after final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action." (Rollo, p. 33.) The instant petition which seeks to set aside the order of the respondent judge granting the defendant's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 141 is highly impressed with merit. Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. The two enactments are quoted hereinbelow:t.hqw Sec. 2. Independent civil action. In the cases provided for in Articles 31,32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." (Rule 111, Rules of Court.) Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. (Civil Code,) There are at least two things about Art. 33 of the Civil Code which are worth noting, namely: 1. The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution." This conclusion is supported by the comment of the Code Commission, thus:t.hqw The underlying purpose of the principle under consideration is to allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him, regardless of the action of the State attorney. It is not conducive to civic spirit and to individual self-reliance and initiative to habituate the citizens to depend upon the government for the vindication of their own private rights. It is true that in many of the cases referred to in the provision cited, a criminal prosecution is proper, but it should be remembered that while the State is the complainant in the criminal case, the injured individual is the one most concerned because it is he who has suffered directly. He should be permitted to demand reparation for the wrong which peculiarly affects him. (Report, p. 46.) And Tolentino says:t.hqw

The general rule is that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately; and after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. The present articles creates an exception to this rule when the offense is defamation, fraud, or physical injuries, In these cases, a civil action may be filed independently of the criminal action, even if there has been no reservation made by the injured party; the law itself in this article makes such reservation; but the claimant is not given the right to determine whether the civil action should be scheduled or suspended until the criminal action has been terminated. The result of the civil action is thus independent of the result of the civil action." (I Civil Code, p. 144 [1974.]) 2. The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide.t.hqw The Article in question uses the words 'defamation', 'fraud' and 'physical injuries.' Defamation and fraud are used in their ordinary sense because there are no specific provisions in the Revised Penal Code using these terms as means of offenses defined therein, so that these two terms defamation and fraud must have been used not to impart to them any technical meaning in the laws of the Philippines, but in their generic sense. With this apparent circumstance in mind, it is evident that the terms 'physical injuries' could not have been used in its specific sense as a crime defined in the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult to believe that the Code Commission would have used terms in the same article-some in their general and another in its technical sense. In other words, the term 'physical injuries' should be understood to mean bodily injury, not the crime of physical injuries, bacause the terms used with the latter are general terms. In any case the Code Commission recommended that the civil action for physical injuries be similar to the civil action for assault and battery in American Law, and this recommendation must hove been accepted by the Legislature when it approved the article intact as recommended. If the intent has been to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery, as the Code Commission states, the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries, or frustrated homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death," (Carandang vs. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94, 96-97 [1955].) Corpus vs. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, which states that reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code is not authoritative. Of eleven justices only nine took part in the decision and four of them merely concurred in the result.

In the light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the civil action against Dr. Japzon may proceed independently of the criminal action against her. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted; the order dismissing Civil Case No. 141 is hereby set aside; no special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.1wph1.t Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., concurring: I concur. Death due to a negligent act may be a delict or quasi-delict. It may create a civil action based on article 100 of the Penal Code or an action based on culpa aquiliana under article 2176 of the Civil Code. These alternatives are assumed in article 2177 of the Civil Code "but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant" (Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 and Sudario vs. Acro Taxi and Yuson, 86 Phil. 1. See Formento vs. CA, L-26442, August 29,1969,29 SCRA 437). The term "physical injuries" in article 33 of the Civil Code includes death and may give rise to an independent civil action (Dyogi vs. Yatco, 100 Phil. 1095). The rule in Corpus vs. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, that reckless imprudence is not included in article 33 of the Civil Code, is not authoritative doctrine because it was concurred in by only five Justices. Four Justices concurred in the result.

Separate Opinions AQUINO, J., concurring: I concur. Death due to a negligent act may be a delict or quasi-delict. It may create a civil action based on article 100 of the Penal Code or an action based on culpa aquiliana under article 2176 of the Civil Code. These alternatives are assumed in article 2177 of the Civil Code "but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant"

(Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 and Sudario vs. Acro Taxi and Yuson, 86 Phil. 1. See Formento vs. CA, L-26442, August 29,1969,29 SCRA 437). The term "physical injuries" in article 33 of the Civil Code includes death and may give rise to an independent civil action (Dyogi vs. Yatco, 100 Phil. 1095). The rule in Corpus vs. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, that reckless imprudence is not included in article 33 of the Civil Code, is not authoritative doctrine because it was concurred in by only five Justices. Four Justices concurred in the result.