Estados Unidos

Implied institution of the civil action with the criminal action 1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action (Sec. 1 [a], Rule 111, Rules of Court). The reason for the implied institution of the criminal action is the principle that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Article 100, Revised Penal Code).

Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The civil aspect is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Article 100, Revised Penal Code).

Under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in the instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular representation (Cruz v. Mina, G.R.

No. 154207, April 27,2007).

2. A separate civil action would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9,2007).

107

108 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION

The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him (Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

169711, February 8,2010).

3. The rule on implied institution of the civil action does not apply before the filing of the criminal action or information. Hence, it was ruled in one case that when there is no criminal case yet against the respondents as when the Ombudsman is still in the process of finding probable cause to prosecute the respondent, the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted along with the criminal action unless the offended party: (a) waives the civil action, (b) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (c) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, is not applicable (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.

Ombudsman, G.R. No. 133347, October 15,2008).

Purposes of the criminal and civil actions

The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. The sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused (Ricarze v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9,2007).

CHAPTER in 109 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

(Rule 111)

Judgment of conviction includes a judgment on the civil liability

Because of the rule that the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the trial court should, in case of conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any and if the filing of the civil action has not been reserved, previously instituted or waived (Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12,2007).

Who the real parties in interest are in the civil aspect of the case

The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused. Hence, either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor generally has no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as far as he is concerned (Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007).

Rule applicable

One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure which pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit (Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12,2007).

When a civil action may proceed independently; independent civil actions and quasi-delicts (Bar 2005)

1. The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution. Under the Rules, only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed included in a crimi

110 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION

nal action. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Articles 32,33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate, distinct and independent" of any criminal prosecution which may be based on the same act (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v.

People, G.R. No. 147703, April 14,2004).

Thus, if the employee/driver of a common carrier, by his negligent act causes serious injuries to a pedestrian, the former is not only civilly liable as a result of the felonious act (reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries) but is likewise liable under a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Such civil liability even if resulting from the same negligent act is separate and independent of the crime.

2. Another possible legal basis for the institution of a civil action against the driver separate from the civil action flowing from the offense is Article 33 of the Civil Code. Because the act of the driver has caused physical injuries, "a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal act, may be brought by the offended party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence" (Article 33, Civil Code of the Philippines).

3. By the clear terms of Article 2177 of the Civil Code, the responsibility arising from a quasi-delict "is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code "

The same rule in Article 2177 of the Civil Code finds support from Article 31 of the same Code, thus:

"When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the crimi- nal proceedings and regardless of the results of the lat- ter."

Article 2176 arises from a source of obligation distinct from a crime while Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code are sources of obligations arising from direct provisions of

CHAPTER III PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

(Rule 111)

111

law. The civil actions arising from these articles do not arise from the acts or omissions constituting a felony hence, are not impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Only the civil action to recover the civil liability flowing from or arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action.

4. The civil actions arising from Articles 2176, 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code may be filed independently and separately from the criminal action because they do not arise from the offense charged. What the law proscribes is double recovery. Article 2177 of the Civil Code declares that "the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant

The same prohibition on double recovery is reiterated in the Rules of Court (Sec. 3, Rule 111), thus:

"x x x In no case however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action."

5. A criminal case based on defamation, fraud or physical injuries gives rise to an independent civil action arising not from the crime charged but from Article 33 even if caused by the very same defamatory or fraudulent act.

This civil action is also distinct from the civil action which is the consequence of the alleged criminal act. The same principle applies to all those actions based on Articles 32, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code which may arise from the very same act that gave rise to the crime.

Consequences of the independent character of actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code

The following are some of the consequences of the separate and distinct character of civil actions arising not from the offense charged but from Articles 32,33,34 and 2176 of the Civil Code:

1. The right to bring the civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action (Sec. 3, Rule 111, Rules

112 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION

of Court) and regardless of the results of the latter (Article 31, Civil Code of the Philippines). (Bar 2005)

2. The quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 111, Rules of Court).

3. (a) The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein.

(b) The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime charged does not extinguish the right to bring an independent civil action.

(c) Even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party may

— subject to the control of the prosecutor — still intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest therein (See also Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, April 14,2004).

When there is no implied institution of the civil action

1. There is no implied institution of the civil action to recover civil liability arising from the offense charged in any of the following instances:

(a) When the offended party waives the civil action;

(b) When the offended party reserves the right to institute the civil action separately; or

(c) When the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (Sec. 1 [a], Rule 111, Rules of Court).

The above rule has no application to independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.

2. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense

CHAPTER in 113 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

(Rule 111)

charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.

Hence, it is correct to argue that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior institution of the civil aspect of the criminal case, it follows that the civil case arising from grave threats is deemed instituted with the criminal action and, hence, the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect (Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27,2007).

Reservation of the civil action

If the offended party desires to reserve the right to institute the civil action after the criminal action has been instituted, the reservation shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence. The reservation is to be made under circumstances that would afford the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation (Sec. l[a], Rule 111, Rules of Court).

No reservation of the civil action in Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (Bar 2001; 2002)

1. While the rule allows the offended party to reserve the right to institute the civil action, such right does not apply to a prosecution of a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, which is the law on bouncing checks. The criminal action in this case shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon the filing of the joint and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved. This amount shall also be considered as the actual damages claimed (Sec.

l[b], Rule 111, Rules of Court). It should be observed that what the rule prohibits is the filing of a reservation to file the civil action arising from Batas Pambansa Big 22. It does not prohibit the waiver of the civil action or the institution of the civil action prior to the criminal action.

2. Even under the amended rules, a separate proceed- ing for the recovery of civil liability in cases of violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case (Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No.

114 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION

158177, January 28, 2008). Quoting the earlier case of Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp. (465 SCRA 454) the Court noted in Lo Bun Tiong:

wx x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure] was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit grab's and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. We have previously observed that a separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity of suits must be avoided.

Where petitioners' rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted." (Emphasis supplied)

When the separate civil action is suspended

1. After the criminal action is commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action (Sec. 2, Rule

CHAPTER III PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

(Rule 111)

115

111, Rules of Court). The rule indicates that preference is given to the resolution of the criminal action.

2. It is submitted that even if the right to institute the civil action separately has been reserved, the separate civil action cannot however, be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action previously instituted.

Also, if the civil action was commenced before the institution of the criminal action, the civil action shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits, once the criminal action is filed. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action (Sec.

2, Rule 111, Rules of Court). This rule however, does not apply to independent civil actions discussed earlier and covers only civil actions arising from the offense charged.

Consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action

1. It is clear that the above rule, as it stands, gives precedence to the resolution of the criminal action and will necessarily result in a delay in the disposition of the civil action which may have been already filed or of the action the right to the filing of which has been reserved. However, the rule also affords a remedy to avoid such a delay. The offended party may move for the consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. The motion for consolidation by the offended party is to be filed before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly (Sec. 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court).

2. If the civil action was commenced ahead of the criminal action and evidence had already been adduced in the civil action even before the institution of the criminal action, the evidence so adduced shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right to cross- examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case. The consolidation shall not likewise prejudice the right of the parties to present additional evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court).

116 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION

Suspension of the period of prescription

Where there is no consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action and the civil action is suspended or the civil action cannot be instituted separately until after final judgment is rendered in the criminal action, the prescriptive period of the civil action shall be tolled during the pendency of the criminal action (Sec. 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court).

When no reservation is required; when civil action is not suspended

1. When the act constituting a crime is at the same time a violation of Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code, there is no need to reserve the filing of a separate civil action.

The civil actions under the said articles do not arise from the offense but from violations of specific provisions of the Civil Code. Specific attention need be given to the tenor of Sec. 1 of Rule 111. Under said rule, only the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. Actions based on Articles 32,33, and 34 arise from the law and are commonly called 'independent civil actions' while those based on Article 2176 arise from quasi-delicts. They do not arise from the offense or crime charged and hence, are not deemed instituted with the filing of the criminal action.

Article 1156 of the Civil Code considers law' and 'quasi- delicts' as sources of obligations separate and distinct from a crime (acts or omissions punished by law). Under Article 31 of the Civil Code, "when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter."

Article 1156 of the Civil Code considers law' and 'quasi- delicts' as sources of obligations separate and distinct from a crime (acts or omissions punished by law). Under Article 31 of the Civil Code, "when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter."