G.R. No. L-39999, May 31, 1984, GUTIERREZ JR., J.
What Article 29 clearly and expressly provides is a remedy for the plaintiff in case the defendant has been acquitted in a criminal prosecution on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It merely emphasizes that a
civil action for damages is not precluded by an acquittal for the same criminal act or omission.
Facts:
Roy Padilla, Filomeno Galdones, Ismael Gonzalgo, and Jose Farley (Padilla et al) herein petitioners, were charged with the crime of Grave Coercion by one Antonio Vergara (Vergara) for allegedly preventing the latter from closing his stall at the public market and by subsequently forcibly opening the door of the said stall and thereafter brutally demolishing and destroying the same.
The RTC found Padilla et al guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal with the CA, acquitted Padilla et al on the ground of reasonable doubt but were ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P9,600.00 as damages. To this, Padilla et al appealed as regards the civil aspect of the case. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Padilla et al may be held civilly liable for damages despite their acquittal
Ruling:
Yes, they may still be held civilly liable. There is nothing contrary to the Civil Code provision in the rendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgment awarding damages in the same criminal action. The two can stand side by side. A judgment of acquittal operates to extinguish the criminal liability. It does not, however, extinguish the civil liability unless there is clear showing that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist.
We further note the rationale behind Art. 29 of the Civil Code in arriving at the intent of the legislator that they could not possibly have intended to make it more difficult for the aggrieved party to recover just compensation by making a separate civil action mandatory and exclusive.
A separate civil action may be warranted where additional facts have to be established or more evidence must be adduced or where the criminal case has been fully terminated and a separate complaint would be just as efficacious or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial court where the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the civil aspects of the case. The offended party may, of course, choose to file a separate action. These do not exist in this case.
Considering moreover the delays suffered by the case in the trial, appellate, and review stages, it would be unjust to the complainants in this case to require at this time a separate civil action to be filed.
Prejudicial Question
LEONILO C. DONATO v. HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF MANIIA, BRANCH XXXII HON. JOSE FLAMINIANO, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; PAZ B. ABAYAN
G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988, GANCAYCO, J.
The civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and is thus not a prejudicial question in the crime of bigamy. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts;
otherwise, the presumption is that the first marriage exists.
Facts:
Paz B. Abayan and Leonilo C. Donato lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for at least five (5) years. In 1978, Paz married Leonilo, without knowing that the latter had a subsisting marriage with another woman. Upon discovering the truth, Paz left Leonilo and filed a criminal complaint for bigamy.
Before Leonilo was arraigned, Paz filed a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Leonilo. Taking advantage of the situation, Leonilo moved to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground that civil case for nullity of marriage filed by private respondent raises a prejudicial question.
Issue:
Whether or not the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage poses a prejudicial question to the criminal case.
Ruling:
No. A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal action, it must appear that (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, and that (2) the resolution of the issue/s raised in the civil case would necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. The civil case does not determine Leonilo’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy.
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts; otherwise, the presumption is that the first marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
RICARDO QUIAMBAO v. HON. ADRIANO OSORIO, ZENAIDA GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA GAZA BERNARDO, AND FELIPE GAZA
G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988, FERNAN, J.
Even if the cases involved are civil and administrative in nature, a prejudicial question exists so long as the following requisites are present: (a) the (administrative) case involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the (civil) case; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the (civil) action may proceed.
Facts:
Ricardo Quiambao filed an administrative case against Zenaida Gaza Buensucero, et al. before the Office of the Land Authority. Ricardo questioned Zenaida, et al.’s right of possession over a parcel of land in Malabon, Rizal. During the pendency of the case, Ricardo went to the subject property, fenced it, and began construction of a house thereon. Zenaida, et al. thereafter filed a civil case against Ricardo for forcible entry. Ricardo argued that the pending administrative case poses a prejudicial question which bars the civil case.
Issue:
Whether or not the administrative case questioning Zenaida, et al.’s right of possession over the property poses a prejudicial question to the civil case for forcible entry.
Ruling:
Yes. The actions involved in the case at bar being respectively civil and administrative in character. This means that technically speaking, prejudicial question does not exist. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate correlation of the issues between the said cases. The right of Zenaida, et al. in the civil case to eject petitioner over the subject property is intertwined on their right of possession over the said parcel of land, which is the subject of the administrative case. Likewise, the resolution of the administrative case necessarily determines whether or not the civil case may proceed. Hence, the administrative case posed a prejudicial question as against the civil case.
ISABELO APA, MANUEL APA AND LEONILO JACALAN v. HON. RUMOLDO R.
FERNANDEZ, HON. CELSO V. ESPINOSA, AND SPS. FELIXBERTO TIGOL, JR.