Variación Estacional: con los datos ajustados a la variación estacional se

30. DR. FERNANDO SOLIDUM VS. PEOPLE GR NO. 192123. MARCH 10, 2014

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by the RTC and CA against a doctor.

FACTS: Dr. Solidum, an anesthesiologist, was part of a surgical team of doctors in Ospital ng Maynila who conducted a pull-through operation (creation of anal opening by resection of large intestines) on Gerald Gercayo, a three-year old child with an imperforate anus. During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia (low heart rate) and went into a coma. He subsequently regained consciousness, but then, he could no longer see, hear or move. Gerald’s mother filed a complaint against the attending physicians with the City Prosecutor of Manila. The Office filed an information in MeTC Manila solely against Dr. Solidum, for failing to monitor and regulate properly

the levels of anesthesia during Gerald’s operation, to his damage and prejudice. The case was transferred to RTC-Family Court, which found the doctor guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries, and sentenced him to be imprisoned, pay damages amounting to P600,000 plus costs, and cancelled his bail. His colleagues filed for MR to exclude them from solidary liability as to the damages, to which the court acceded. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC on the case as a textbook example of res ipsa loquitur. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Solidum can be held civilly liable after being acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt of reasonable doubt? RULING: No. Although the acquittal of Dr. Solidum would not automatically exempt him from civil liability, the circumstances established do not present factual and legal bases for doing so. There was no firm and competent showing how the injury to Gerald had been caused. The manner of administration of anesthesia was not necessarily the cause of hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerald. To adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would speculate on the cause of hypoxia and the court refused to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence. RESOLUTION: The court found the res ipsa loquitur inappropriate, as there was no sufficient proof that Dr. Solidum had been negligent during the operation. The same can be said for the dismissal of the criminal negligence case, as the prosecution failed to present any witness with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. As the determination of negligence and malpractice cannot be had, his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court granted the petition and acquitted Dr. Solidum of the crime, without any pronouncement on costs of the suit.

31. ANTONIO M. GARCIA vs. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC. G.R. No. 172505 October 1, 2014

31 | P a g e

FACTS: Antonio Garcia, as seller, and Ferro Chemicals, Inc., through Ramon Garcia, as buyer, entered into a deed of absolute· sale and purchase of shares of stock on July 15, 1988. The deed was for the sale and purchase of shares of stock from various corporations, including one class "A" share in Alabang Country Club, Inc. and one proprietary membership in the Manila Polo Club, Inc. These shares of stock were in the name of Antonio Garcia. The contract was allegedly entered into to prevent these shares of stock from being sold at public auction to pay the outstanding obligations of Antonio Garcia. Thereafter, a deed of right of repurchase over the same shares of stock subject of the deed of absolute sale and purchase of shares of stock was entered into between Antonio Garcia and Ferro Chemicals, Inc.; that Antonio Garcia can redeem the properties sold within 180 days from the signing of the agreement. However, Ferro Chemicals, Inc. did not agree to the repurchase the shares of stock. Thus, Antonio Garcia filed an action for specific performance and annulment of transfer of shares.

On September 6, 1989, the class "A" share in Alabang Country Club, Inc. and proprietary membership in the Manila Polo Club, Inc., which were included in the contracts entered into between Antonio Garcia and Ferro Chemicals, Inc., were sold at public auction to Philippine Investment System Organization. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. filed a complaint for estafa against Antonio Garcia before the Regional Trial, for allegedly misrepresenting to Ferro Chemicals, Inc. that the shares subject of the contracts entered into were free from all liens and encumbrances.

In the decision dated December 12, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, Antonio Garcia was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and ruled that private complainant was aware of the status of the subject CLUB SHARES. Thus, the element of false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means which constitute the very cause or the only motive which induced the private complainant to enter into the questioned deed of sale (Exh. "A") is wanting in the case at bar. On August 25, 1997, Ferro Chemicals, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals the July 29, 1997 order of the Regional Trial Court as to the civil aspect of the case. The notice of appeal filed was entitled "Notice of Appeal Ex Gratia Abudantia Ad Cautelam (Of The Civil Aspect of the Case)." It alleged: Herein

private complainant hereby gives notice, out of extreme caution, that it is appealing the Decision dated 12 December 1996 and the Order dated 29 July 1997 on the civil aspect of the case to the Court of Appeals on the ground that it is notin accordance with the law and the facts of the case. This notice of appeal is without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the criminal aspect, upon the giving of due course thereto, private complainant shall endeavor to seek the consolidation of this appeal with the said petition.

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, in its decision dated August 11, 2005, granted the appeal and awarded Ferro Chemicals, Inc. the amount of ₱1,000,000.00 as actual loss with legal interest and attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱20,000.00. The appellate court found that Antonio Garcia failed to disclose the Philippine Investment and Savings Organization’s lien over the club shares.

ISSUE: Whether Ferro Chemicals, Inc. was entitled to the awards given as civil liability ex delicto

RULING: The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the civil liability ex delictois impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the action for the civil liability ex delictois instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when the court hearing the criminal action declares that ‘the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist’."

When the trial court’s decision was appealed as to its criminal aspect in the petition for certiorari before this court, the civil aspect thereof is deemed included in the appeal. Thus, the relief prayed for by Ferro Chemicals, Inc., that is, recovery of civil liability ex delicto, is asserted in both actions before this court and the Court of Appeals.

[T]he extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the extinction of the civil action, whether the latter is instituted with or separately

32 | P a g e

from the criminal action. The offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the liability may arise exists. Jurisprudence has enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the accused’s acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.

However, if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense is likewise appealed. The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the acquittal of the accused. Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the state without violating the doctrine of non-forum shopping.

On the other hand, the conclusion is different if private complainant reserved the right to institute the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the Regional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing of an appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be considered as forum shopping. This is not the situation here. The court sees no more reason to discuss the issue presented by the parties in light of the foregoing discussion. Hence, the petition is granted to set aside CA’s decision.

32. COSCUELLA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: On 9 Nov. 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman received a letter- complaint from People’s Graftwatch, requesting for assistance to investigate the anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for the Province of Negros Occidental in the amount of P20M which allegedly

happened around a month before petitioner stepped down from office as governor.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted its investigation, resulting in the issuance of a Final Evaluation Report dated 16 Apr. 2012 which upgraded the complaint into a criminal case against petitioners. Consequently, petitioners filed their respective counter-affidavits.

On 27 Mar. 2003, a Resolution was prepared, finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and recommended the filing of the corresponding information.

Petitioners alleged that they learned about the 27 Mar, 2003 Resolution and Information only when they received a copy of the latter shortly after its filing with the SB (19 Jun 2009).

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, arguing, inter alia, that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the complaint was instituted. Other co-petitioners later adopted Coscolluela’s motion. In reply, the respondents filed their Opposition to Motion to Quash, explaining that although the Information was originally dated 27 Mar. 2003, it still had to go through careful review and revision before its final approval. It also pointed out that petitioners never raised any objections regarding the purported delay in the proceedings during the interim.

ISSUE: Whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated.

HELD: YES. A person’s right to speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under the Constitution. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi- judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.

33 | P a g e

Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings, it was not the petitioner’s duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsman’s responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

While the foregoing pronouncement should, as a matter of course, result in the acquittal of the petitioners, it does not necessarily follow that petitioners are entirely exculpated from any civil liability, assuming that the same is proven in a subsequent case which the Province may opt to pursue. Sec. 2, Rule 111 ROC provides that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar

private offended party from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the delict, unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

Based on the violation of petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases as herein discussed, the present case stands to be dismissed even before either the prosecution o the defense has been given the chance to present any evidence. Thus, the Court is unable to make a definite pronouncement as to whether petitioners indeed committed the acts or omissions from which any civil liability on their part might arise as prescribed under Sec. 2, Rule 120 ROC. Consequently, absent this pronouncement, the Province is not precluded from instituting a subsequent civil case based on the delict if only to recover the amount of P20M in public funds attributable to petitioner’s alleged malfeasance.

33. NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS vs. PURIFICACION F. FELIPE FACTS: A criminal complaint for violation or Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) was filed by petitioner against respondent for her issuance of a postdated check in the amount of ₱1,020,000.00, which was subsequently dishonored upon presentment due to "STOP PAYMENT", in consideration of a Nissan Terrano 4x4 sports and utility vehicle (SUV) from Nissan which Respondent’s Son purchased. Despite non-payment, Frederick took possession of the vehicle.

Because of this, a demand letter was served upon Purificacion, through Frederick, who lived with her. The letter informed her of the dishonor of the check and gave her five (5) days from receipt within which to replace it with cash or manager’s check. Despite receipt of the demand letter, Purificacion refused to replace the check giving the reason that she was not the one who purchased the vehicle.

During the preliminary investigation, Purificacion gave ₱200,000.00 as partial payment to amicably settle the civil aspect of the case. Thereafter, however, no additional payment had been made.

MeTC rendered its judgment acquitting Purificacion of the charge, but holding her civilly liable to Nissan. On appeal, RTC affirmed the MeTC stating that Purificacion was estopped from denying that she issued the check as a "show check" to boost the credit standing of Frederick and that Nissan agreed not to deposit the same. Further, the RTC considered Purificacion to be an accommodation party. The CA, before whom the case was elevated via a petition for review, granted the petition reasoning out that there was no privity of contract between Nissan and Purificacion. No civil liability could be adjudged against her because of her acquittal from the criminal charge. ISSUE: WON Purificacion may be made liable

RULING: Yes. Well-settled is the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted upon the filing of a criminal action, subject to certain exceptions. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action).

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

34 | P a g e

The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.16 _{If the accused,} however, is not found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action.17_{This rule more} specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted.18 _{The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a} finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.

It can, therefore, be concluded that 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.

Purificacion was charged with violation of BP 22 for allegedly issuing a worthless check.

Purificacion issued the bouncing check. Thus, regardless of her intent, she remains civilly liable because the act or omission, the making and issuing of the subject check, from which her civil liability arises, evidently exists. INTERVENTION

34. LEONARDO A. VILLALON and ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON vs. AMELIA CHAN

G.R. No. 196508 September 24, 2014

BRION, J.:

FACTS: Amelia Chan married Leon Basilio Chua. During the subsistence of his marriage to Amelia, Chua, this time under the name of Leonardo A. Villalon, allegedly contracted a second marriage with Erlinda Talde that took place on June 2, 1993. Amelia, who was then living in the United States and could not personally file a case for bigamy in the Philippines, requested Benito Yao Chua and Wilson Go to commence the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. A verified complaint-affidavit alleging the commission of the crime of bigamy was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Antipolo. Consequently, an Information was filed with the RTC. On arraignment, the petitioners pleaded not guilty.

During the pre-trial, Atty. Apollo V. Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia, the private offended party. Leonardo filed an omnibus motion with the RTC seeking to disqualify Atty. Atencia. Amelia opposed the omnibus motion, while the public prosecutor joined the petitioners in disqualifying Atty. Atencia from appearing in the case. The RTC granted Leonardo’s omnibus motion. Trial of the case ensued thereafter. Amelia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA. The petition was granted and annulled the order disqualifying Atty. Atencia to intervene in the case. : Petitioners argue that the CA gravely