Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories:
(1) Restitution and restoration;
(2) Reparation of the damage caused; and (3) Indemnification of consequential
damages.
Restitution or restoration
Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though
such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer.
For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender.
Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct.
Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court.
For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman.
Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person.
Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the
property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid.
The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him.
The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations.
The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender.
Reparation of the damage caused
In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human
life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven.
Indemnification of consequential damages Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits.
This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime.
The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them.
Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests.
Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors:
(1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and
(2) The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability.
Non-compliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability.
Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment.
Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper’s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things.
Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur:
(1) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee;
(2) At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two;
(3) The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable;
(4) The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.
When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true.
Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused.
When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary.
Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another.
If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.
To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here.
There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.
Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following:
(1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable;
(2) In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury.
The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.
The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.
Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable.
In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute.