CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COURSE OUTLINE 2016 PART II

B. CIVIL ASPECT (RULE 111)

Civil liabilities that may arise from a criminal act
Arts. 100-113, Revised Penal Code
Arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176, 2180, 2184, Civil Code
Dual concept of civil liability
1. Co vs. Muoz (G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013)
- procedural rules provide for two modes by which civil liability ex delicto may be enforced:
(1) through a civil action that is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action; (2)
through a civil action that is filed separately, either before the criminal action or after, upon
reservation of the right to file it separately in the criminal action
Ways of instituting civil actions in criminal cases
If without reservation, deemed instituted with criminal action.
Exceptions: waiver, reservation of right to institute separately,
prior institution Sec. 1
Prior institution of civil action Sec. 1, 1st par.
When to reserve Sec. 1, 2nd par.
No reservation required and civil action not suspended when act constituting a crime is
at the same time a violation of Arts. 32, 33, 34 (independent civil actions) and 2176
(quasi-delicts) of Civil Code
2.

No need for reservation if civil action based on culpa aquiliana

Bordas vs. Canadalla (G.R. No. L-30036, 1988 April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 37)
Independent civil action
3. Castillo vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 48541, August 21, 1989, 176 SCRA 591)
When separate civil action is suspended Sec. 2, 2nd par.
Abandonment of right to recover damages in criminal case
4. Garcia vs. Florido (G.R. No. L-35095, August 31, 1973, 52 SCRA 420)

Separate institution of civil action

5. Standard Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Cuaresma (G.R. No. 200055, September 10,
2014), citing Casupanan v. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582 (2002)
- The offended party in the criminal action can file an independent civil action for quasidelict 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.
Separate civil action not allowed for violations of BP 22
6. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs. Felipe (G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013 )
- if the judgment is conviction of the accused, then the necessary penalties and civil
liabilities arising from the offense or crime shall be imposed. On the contrary, if the
judgment is of acquittal, then the imposition of the civil liability will depend on
whether or not the act or omission from which it might arise exists.

Prohibition against double recovery Art. 2177, Civil Code

When civil action may be consolidated with subsequent criminal action Sec. 2 , 2nd par.
7. Casupanan vs. Laroya (G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002)
- 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.
Separate, simultaneous, and independent civil actions Secs. 2 and 3
Reckless imprudence
8. Corpus vs. Paje (G.R. No. L-26737, 1969 July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062)
Failure to make reservation to file separate civil action
9. Hambon vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 122150, March 17, 2003), citing Maniago
vs.
Court of Appeals, 324 Phil. 34 [1996])
-the right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved, as
required by Section 1, Rule 111, otherwise it should be dismissed;
Violation of constitutional rights and liberties
10. Aberca vs. Ver (G.R. No. L-69866, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 590)
Dual character of a crime
11. Occena vs. Icamina (G.R. No. 82146, January 22, 1990, 181 SCRA 328)
Effect of active participation
12. Bonite vs. Zosa (G.R. No. L-33772, June 20, 1988, 162 SCRA 173)
Effect of acquittal or extinction of penal action on the civil action or civil liability Sec. 2, par. 4
13. Daluraya vs. Marla Oliva (G.R. No. 210148, December 08, 2014)
- Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The acquittal of an
accused of the crime charged, however, does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability.
Two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects on the civil
liability of the accused
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of.
The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt
of the accused.
Real parties in interest in the civil aspect of case
14. Hun Hyung Park vs. Eun Wong Choi, G. R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007
- Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of the
judgment despite the acquittal of the accused.
15. Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation vs. Ang (G.R. No.182157, August 17, 2015)
The private offended party has an interest in the civil aspect of the case. Logically, the
capability of the private complainant to question the dismissal of the criminal proceedings
is limited only to questions relating to the civil aspect of the case. It should ideally be
along this thin framework that we may entertain questions regarding the dismissals of
criminal cases instituted by private offended parties.

Effect of death of the accused on the civil action Sec. 4

16. Cabugao vs. People (G.R. No. 163879, July 30, 2014)
- the effect of death, pending appeal of his conviction of petitioner Dr. Ynzon with regard
to his criminal and pecuniary liabilities should be in accordance with People v. Bayotas,
G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994 wherein the Court laid down the rules in case the
accused dies prior to final judgment:
Judgment in civil action not a bar Sec. 5
Suspension of criminal action by reason of prejudicial question Sec. 6
17. De Zuzuarregui vs. Villarosa (G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 377)
- For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal action, it must appear not
only that said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised
in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two (2) conflicting
decisions.
Elements of prejudicial question Sec. 7
18. Sps. Gaditano vs. San Miguel Corporation (G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013)
- A prejudicial question: a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there
exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
19. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Jacinto (G.R. No. 154622, August 3, 2010, 626
SCRA 315)
- A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal
action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be
preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

Annulment of marriage not a prejudicial question in a criminal case for parricide.

20. Pimentel vs. Pimentel (G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010)
- Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for Parricide
Provisional remedies in criminal cases (Rule 127)
Availability Sec. 1
Provisional remedies in civil actions Rules 57 to 61
21. Babala vs. Albano (No. L-4600, February 28, 1952, 90 Phil 827)
Ex. support pendente lite for the offspring as a consequence of the crime
(Rule 61, Sec. 6)
Rules on attachment in criminal cases Sec. 2
- Less grounds than those under Rule 57, Sec. 1