instituted with the crim case
a. Civil actions in this rule not limited to those which arise “from the offense charge,” as originally provided in Rule111 before the amendment of the Rules à reservation now applies to all civil actions whether arising from crime or quasi delict (2176)
205 Statements in cases implying that Rule111 Secs.1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the SC under the Constitution à only obiters and asides, not dispositive of the case
b. Garcia v Florido: right of an injured person to bring civil action even if no reservation in the crim action was made, upheld, on ground that by bringing the civil action the injured parties had “in effect abandoned their right to press for recovery of damages in the crim case”
Gladi: di ko nagets ang diff ng case na to sa present case; pareho lang namang crim instituted before civil, pero in the Garcia case, civil independent of the crim, even without reservation, was upheld
c. Abellana v Marave: the filing of the civil case was equivalent to a reservation because it was made after the decision of the City Court had been appealed à Sec. 7 Rule 123: appeal had the affect of vacating the decision in the crim case d. Madeja v Caro: civil action could proceed while crim case was pending because
widow had reserved her right to file a separate civil action for damages
e. Jarantilla v CA: the acquittal of the accused in the crim case on the ground of reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an action for damages even though the filing of the civil action was not reserved à based on CC Art. 29 CC
make a formal offer of its evidence
206 Question on whether the crim action and the civil action must be tried in a single proceeding has always been regarded a matter of procedure à within the rulemaking power conferred by the Constitution on the SC
à does not impair, diminish or defeat substantive rights à only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure - merely procedural in nature
à requirement of reservation not incompatible with independent character of civil action - difference between allowing the trial of civil actions to proceed independently of the crim prosecution and requiring that, before they may be instituted at all, a reservation to bring them separately must be made
it is the conduct of the trial not the institution through the filing of a complaint which is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome of the crim case
207 prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission
Barredo v Garcia: the injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for damages he will bring. If he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil…his cause of action against the employer will be limited to the recovery of employer’s subsidiary liability under RPC Art.103
208 Nor does it matter that the civil action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Though not an accused in the criminal case, the employer is very much a party
à decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive upon the employer "not only with regard to its civil liability but also with regard to its amount” - true not only with respect to the civil liability arising from crime but also with respect to the civil liability under the Civil Code
xx Decision reversed. Complaint against Maniago dismissed. When criminal action may be suspended, prejudicial question 65.Balgos vs Sandiganbayan, 176 SCRA 287
Facts: Accused:
Balgos: Clerk of Court, RTC Bayombong, NV/ ex-ooficio provincial sheriff Dacayo, Sison, Cuaresma: Deputy Provincial Sheriffs
Accused enforced a writ of execution against a Mustang car registered in the name of Leticia Acosta-Ang, despite their knowledge that the registered owner is not the judgment debtor in CC 4047.
April 18, 86: they were charged with violation of Section 3 © of RA 3019.
March 18, 87: UY, prevailing party in CC 4047 filed complaint for rescission of sale of car by Juanita Ang to Leticia Ang for being allegedly in fraud of creditors.
Petitioners were subsequently granted their motion for reinvestigation.
Tanodbayan issued order to dismiss case for lack of merit and to withdraw info in crim case and filed with SB to withdraw info. Such was denied.
Petitioners filed motion to suspend proceedings in crim case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Denied.
Issue: WON SB committed grave abuse of discretion in denying motion to suspend criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question
Held: NO Ratio:
209 no prejudicial question existed: the pending civil case for the annulment of the sale of the car to Leticia is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners for the acts allegedly committed by them in seizing the car
210 even if annulled, petitioners still have to establish that they acted in good faith in proceeding with the execution on the car even when they were presented evidence tending to show it did not belong to Juanito Ang anymore
RULE: Crespo vs Mogul
While the public prosecutor has the sole discretion and control in the prosecution of offenses, once the complaint or information is filed in court, the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case and all the subsequent actions that may be taken by the public prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case must be subject to the approval of the court.
66. Bobis vs Bobis, July 31, 2000 Facts:
Isaganio Bobis married Maria Javier in 1985. During the subsistence of such marriage, he married Marbella Bobis and then subsequently married Julia Hrnandez.
Marbella Bobis charged him with bigamy.
Sometime thereafter, he initiated a civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license.
He filed motion to suspend the proceedings in the crim case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the crim case.
Judge granted motion. Marbella filed motion for recon. Denied.
Issue: WON the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a crim case for bigamy
Held: NO Ratio:
211 A prejudicial question is one which arises on a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.
212 2 elements:
a. the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action
b. the resolution of such issue determines WON the criminal action may proceed
213Landicho vs Relova: he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration
of nullity of the 1st marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy and in such
case, the crim case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity.
214 here: resorted to civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating of delaying his crim prosecution
215 A decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the crim charge and thus is not a prejudicial question
PETITION GRANTED. RTC orders reversed and set aside. Ordered to immediately proceed with crim case
67. Cabaero vs Cantos, 1997 Facts:
Between Sept 1987 to October 1987, Cabaero induced Epifanio Ceralde to advance 1, 550,000 to be paid to MC Castro Contruction Co as payment for 6 parcels of land in Pangasinan.
Accusedpromised to pay back Ceralde as soon as loan applied by the their biz venture, Aqualand Ventures and management, would be released by SOLIDBANK.
Perez falsely pretended that she given the authority to receive the check and induced the cashier to release the same.
Ceralde never received his money back.
Upon arraignment, petitioners entered plea of not guilty and later filed an Answer with
Counterclaim alleging that the money loaned was duly applied to the purchase of lands and that the filing of said info was unjustified and malicious.
216 dismiss nfo and the civil action impliedly instated in the crim action 217 ordering ceralde to pay:
a. 1.5M for moral damages
b. 500thou for exemplary damages c. 100thou atty’s fees
d. 20lit fees
During initial hearing, prosecution moved that the answer with counterclaim be expunged from records on 2 grounds:
218 TC had no jurisdiction over the answer with counterclaim for non-payment of the prescribed docket fees
219 compulsory counterclaim against complainant is barred for failure to file it before arraignment
Judge granted motion and denied petitioner’s motion for recon
Issue: WON judge committed GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering that the answer with counterclaim be expunged from the records
Held: YES
Issue1: WON payment of filing fees is required for court to acquire jurisdiction over counterclaim Held: NO
Ratio:
220 initiatory pleading