Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192123
March 10, 2014
TOPIC: Rule 111 Civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted
(sec.1)
PONENTE: BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
This appeal is taken by a physician-anesthesiologist who has been pronounced
guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). He had been part of
the team of anesthesiologists during the surgical pull-through operation conducted
on a three-year old patient born with an imperforate anus.
Gerald Albert Gercayo (Gerald) was born on June 2, 1992 with an imperforate
anus. Two days after his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy, a surgical procedure
to bring one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall, enabling
him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body.
On May 17, 1995, Gerald, then three years old, was admitted at the Ospital ng
Maynila for a pull-through operation. The petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum
(Dr. Solidum) was the anesthesioligist. During the operation, Gerald
experienced bradycardia, and went into a coma. He regained consciousness
only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or move.
Agitated by her sons helpless and unexpected condition, Ma. Luz Gercayo
(Luz) lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries with the City Prosecutors Office of Manila against the
attending physicians.
Upon a finding of probable cause, the City Prosecutors Office filed an
information solely against Dr. Solidum.
The case was initially filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, but was
transferred to the RTC pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8369 (The
Family Courts Act of 1997).
On July 19, 2004, the RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr. Solidum guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical
injuries. On January 20, 2010, the CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum.
ISSUE(S): whether or not Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence.
HELD: NO
RATIO: Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to monitor and regulate
properly the levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo and
using 100% halothane and other anesthetic medications." However, the foregoing
circumstances, taken together, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic
agent to Gerald. Indeed, Dr. Vertidos findings did not preclude the probability
that other factors related to Geralds major operation, which could or could not
necessarily be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia, had caused the
hypoxia and had then led Gerald to experience bradycardia. Dr. Vertido
revealingly concluded in his report, instead, that "although the anesthesiologist
followed the normal routine and precautionary procedures, still hypoxia and its
corresponding side effects did occur."
The existence of the probability about other factors causing the hypoxia has
engendered in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt as to Dr. Solidums
guilt, and moves us to acquit him of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries. "A reasonable doubt of guilt," according
to United States v. Youthsey:
x x x is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. It is not a
captious doubt; not a doubt engendered merely by sympathy for the unfortunate
position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept the responsibility of convicting a
fellow man. If, having weighed the evidence on both sides, you reach the
conclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as would lead
you to act on the faith of it in the most important and crucial affairs of your life,
you may properly convict him. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof to a
mathematical demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility of mistake.
We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum would not immediately
exempt him from civil liability. But we cannot now find and declare him civilly
liable because the circumstances that have been established here do not present
the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. His acquittal did not derive only
from reasonable doubt. There was really no firm and competent showing
how the injury to Gerard had been caused. That meant that the manner of
administration of the anesthesia by Dr. Solidum was not necessarily the cause of
the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard. Consequently, to
adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the
hypoxia. We are not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on
speculation but on competent evidence.
Liability of Ospital ng Maynila
Although the result now reached has resolved the issue of civil liability, we have
to address the unusual decree of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, of expressly
holding Ospital ng Maynila civilly liable jointly and severally with Dr. Solidum.
The decree was flawed in logic and in law.
In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that
is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to that arising from
the offense charged. It is puzzling, therefore, how the RTC and the CA could
have adjudged Ospital ng Maynila jointly and severally liable with Dr. Solidum
for the damages despite the obvious fact that Ospital ng Maynila, being an
artificial entity, had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum. The lower courts
thereby acted capriciously and whimsically, which rendered their judgment
against Ospital ng Maynila void as the product of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Not surprisingly, the flawed decree raises other material concerns that the RTC
and the CA overlooked. We deem it important, then, to express the following
observations for the instruction of the Bench and Bar.
For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its
fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. The R TC and
the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect. Verily, no person can be
prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not
made a party. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due
process of law.
Moreover, Ospital ng Maynila could be held civilly liable only when subsidiary
liability would be properly enforceable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code. But the subsidiary liability seems far-fetched here. The conditions for
subsidiary liability to attach to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with.
Firstly, pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, Ospital ng Maynila
must be shown to be a corporation "engaged in any kind of industry." The term
industry means any department or branch of art, occupation or business,
especially one that employs labor and capital, and is engaged in industry.
However, Ospital ng Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in
industry conducted for profit but purely in charitable and humanitarian work.
Secondly, assuming that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit,
Dr. Solidum must be shown to be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the
discharge of his duties during the operation on Gerald. Yet, he definitely was not
such employee but a consultant of the hospital. And, thirdly, assuming that civil
liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an employee (which did not happen
here), the execution against him was unsatisfied due to his being insolvent.
017 Castillo v. Salvador
G.R. No. 191240, July 30, 2014
TOPIC: Civil aspect of criminal case; damages
PERALTA, J.
FACTS
1. Respondent Philip Salvador and his brother Ramon Salvador were
charged with estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a) of the RPC. Upon
arraignment, respondent and his brother pleaded not guilty. Trial on the
merits ensued.
2. Petitioner Cristina Castillo gave respondent $100,000 to invest into
the remittance business in the name of respondent in HongKong
assuring her huge profits due to the popularity of respondent (si
Philip Salvador as in yung actor HAHA). However, the proposed
business never operated.
3. Petitioners side: she fell in love with respondent and trusted him very
much so she agreed to embark on the remittance business. They went to
HK to register the Philip Salvador Freight and Remittance
International Limited. Upon raising the money, by selling her jewelry,
she gave the amount in cash to respondent. Her mom and brother
witnessed the giving of the money but petitioner did not ask for any
receipt because it will be used as operational expense of a business
for their future, as they planned to get married anyway.
4. Respondents side: He denied that petitioner gave him $100,00 and
that it was actually petitioner who initiated the plan of setting up a
business.
5. RTC: found Philip Salvador guilty beyond reasonable doubt; Ramon
Salvador is acquitted. Respondent appealed his conviction to the CA.
6.
a.
b.
c.
Petitioner failed to prove that she raised the money. She said she
sold her jewelry from Dec 2001 May 2002 thats why she was
able to raise $100,000. However, there was no documentary
evidence showing those transactions within the period.
There was no receipt that the money was given by petitioner to
respondent. There should have been a receipt because
petitioners previous transactions with respondent are evidenced
by some kind of receipt or acknowledgement thereby belies
petitioners claim that she did not give the receipt because she
trusted him.
The testimony of Enrico, petitioners brother, declaring that he
was present when petitioner gave respondent the money did not
help. Enrico testified that there was another case filed by
petitioner against respondent where Enrico submitted an
affidavit. He did not submit an affidavit in this case even though
he allegedly witness the giving of the money. However, when
the other case was dismissed, it was then that petitioner told him
to be a witness in this case. Enrico should have been considered
at the first opportunity if he indeed had personal knowledge of
the alleged giving of money to respondent. Thus, presenting
Enrico as a witness only after the other case was dismissed
would create doubt as to the veracity of his testimony.
Using the withdrawal authorities, Lim withdrew the cement bags from FRCC on a
staggered basis. She successfully withdrew 2,800 bags of cement, and sold back
some of the withdrawal authorities, covering 10,000 bags, to Co.
Sometime in April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining
37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal authorities. Lim clarified the matter with
Co and Borja, who explained that the plant implemented a price increase and
would only release the goods once Lim pays for the price difference or agrees to
receive a lesser quantity of cement. Lim objected and maintained that the
withdrawal authorities she bought were not subject to price fluctuations. Lim
sought legal recourse after her demands for Co to resolve the problem with the
plant or for the return of her money had failed.
The criminal case: An Information for Estafa through Misappropriation or
Conversion was filed against Co before Branch 154 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City. The accusatory portion thereof reads:
The private complainant, Lily Lim, participated in the criminal proceedings to
prove her damages. She prayed for Co to return her money amounting
to P 2,380,800.00, foregone profits, and legal interest, and for an award of moral
and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees.13
On November 19, 2003, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 154, rendered its
Order14 acquitting Co of the estafa charge for insufficiency of evidence.
Insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned, however, set this case for
the reception of his evidence on the matter on December 11, 2003 at 8:30 oclock
[sic] in the morning.
After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the Pasig City RTC also
relieved Co of civil liability to Lim in its December 1, 2004 Order.17
Lim sought a reconsideration of the above Order, arguing that she has presented
preponderant evidence that Co committed estafa against her.19
The trial court denied the motion in its Order20 dated February 21, 2005.
IMPORTANT: On March 14, 2005, Lim filed her notice of appeal21 on the
civil aspect of the criminal case. Her appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
85138 and raffled to the Second Division of the CA.
IMPORTANT: On April 19, 2005, Lim filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages before Branch 21 of the RTC of Manila. The
defendants in the civil case were Co and all other parties to the withdrawal
authorities, Tigerbilt, Fil-Cement Center, FRCC, Southeast Asia Cement,
and La Farge Corporation. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
05-112396, asserted two causes of action: breach of contract and abuse of rights
Co filed a motion to dismiss, one in CA one in RTC on the ground of litis
pendentia and forum shopping.
CA granted the motion to dismiss.
Lim filed the instant petition for review, which was docketed as G.R. No. 175256.
RTC: Meanwhile, the Manila RTC denied Cos Motion to Dismiss in an
Order31 dated December 6, 2005. The Manila RTC held that there was no forum
shopping because the causes of action invoked in the two cases are different. It
observed that the civil complaint before it is based on an obligation arising from
contract and quasi-delict, whereas the civil liability involved in the appeal of the
criminal case arose from a felony.
In G.R. No. 179160, Lim prays for the denial of Cos petition.49 In G.R. No.
175256, she prays for the reversal of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 85138,
for a declaration that she is not guilty of forum shopping, and for the
reinstatement of her appeal in Criminal Case No. 116377 to the CA.50
Co filed a petition for certiorari,32 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 93395, before the
appellate court. He prayed for the nullification of the Manila RTCs Order in Civil
Case No. 05-112396 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.33
ISSUE: Did Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific
performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of
the criminal case for estafa? NO
CA: denied Cos petition and remanded the civil complaint to the trial court for
further proceedings; agreed with the Manila RTC that the elements of litis
pendentia and forum shopping are not met in the two proceedings because they do
not share the same cause of action.34
HELD:
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to
two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender51 - (1) civil liability ex
delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100
of the Revised Penal Code,52 and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil
liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The
independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation not arising from the act
or omission complained of as a felony," as provided in Article 31 of the Civil
Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort53). It may also be based on an act
or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently
from the criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code ("in
cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries").
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 delicto is
impliedly instituted with the criminal offense.54 If the action for the civil liability
ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action,
its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action.55 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."56
On the other hand, the independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal
action and may be pursued independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the
Civil Code, which state that:
ART. 31. 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.
(Emphasis supplied.)
ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought
by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities,
jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the two types of civil
liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending the rules on forum
shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.57 As explained in Cancio, Jr. v. Isip:58
One of the elements of res judicata is identity of causes of action. In the instant
case, it must be stressed that the action filed by petitioner is an independent civil
action, which remains separate and distinct from any criminal prosecution based
on the same act. Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa
criminal, a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said
independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa
contractual.
In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa
cases against the offender did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of
forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the
same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable
judgment. Although the cases filed by [the offended party] arose from the same
act or omission of [the offender], they are, however, based on different causes of
action. The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil
action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no
forum-shopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a
separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.59
Since civil liabilities arising from felonies and those arising from other sources of
obligations are authorized by law to proceed independently of each other, the
resolution of the present issue hinges on whether the two cases herein involve
different kinds of civil obligations such that they can proceed independently of
each other. The answer is in the affirmative.
The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been instituted
together with the criminal action.60
On the other hand, the second action, judging by the allegations contained in the
complaint,61 is a civil action arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious
conduct (abuse of rights). In her civil complaint, Lim basically alleges that she
entered into a sale contract with Co under the following terms: that she bought
37,200 bags of cement at the rate of P 64.00 per bag from Co; that, after full
payment, Co delivered to her the withdrawal authorities issued by FRCC
corresponding to these bags of cement; that these withdrawal authorities will be
honored by FRCC for six months from the dates written thereon. Lim then
maintains that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to her under
the sale contract and under the withdrawal authorities; that Co and his codefendants wanted her to pay more for each bag of cement, contrary to their
agreement to fix the price at P 64.00 per bag and to the wording of the withdrawal
authorities; that FRCC did not honor the terms of the withdrawal authorities it
issued; and that Co did not comply with his obligation under the sale contract to
deliver the 37,200 bags of cement to Lim. From the foregoing allegations, it is
evident that Lim seeks to enforce the defendants contractual obligations, given
that she has already performed her obligations. She prays that the defendants
either honor their part of the contract or pay for the damages that their breach has
caused her.
Lim also includes allegations that the actions of the defendants were committed in
such manner as to cause damage to Lim without regard for morals, good customs
and public policy. These allegations, if proven, would constitute tortious conduct
(abuse of rights under the Human Relations provisions of the Civil Code).
Thus, Civil Case No. 05-112396 involves only the obligations arising from
contract and from tort, whereas the appeal in the estafa case involves only the
civil obligations of Co arising from the offense charged. They present different
causes of action, which under the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and
independent"62 from each other. Both cases can proceed to their final
adjudication, subject to the prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of
the Civil Code.63
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Lily Lims Petition in G.R. No. 175256
is GRANTED. The assailed October 20, 2005 Resolution of the Second Division
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85138 is REVERSED and SET
A S I D E . L i l y L i m s a p p e a l i n C A - G . R . C V N o . 8 5 1 3 8 i s
o r d e r e d R E I N S TAT E D a n d t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s
isDIRECTED to RESOLVE the same with DELIBERATE DISPATCH.
Charlie Cos Petition G.R. No. 179160 is DENIED. The assailed April 10, 2007
Decision of the Seventeenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
93395 is AFFIRMED in toto.
019 AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO vs. MARIO
LLAVORE LAROYA
G.R. No. 145391
August 26, 2002
TOPIC: Rule 111
PONENTE: CARPIO, J.
FACTS:
When civil case was filed, criminal case was in the preliminary
investigation stage
MR DENIED
Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99) are ANNULLED and Civil Case No. 2089 is
REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
as to NATURE OF DISMISSAL
o RTC was wrong in dismissing the petition for certiorari under
rule 65
o the rules (rule 41, sec1) provide that if MCTC dismissed the
case without prejudice, the proper remedy is certiorari 65, not
ordinary appeal
o in this case, MTC was silent as to whether the dismissal was
with prejudice. Therefore, it shall be presumed to be without
prejudice
as to FORUM SHOPPING
o elements of forum shopping
1. 2 or more cases are pending
2. identity of parties
3. identity of rights of action
4. identity of relief sought
Here,
though the case arose from same act or omission, they
o
have different causes of action
CRIM CASE based on culpa criminal punishable under
RPC
CIVIL CASE based on culpa aquilana under Artcle
2176 and 2177 of NCC
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
xxx
(b) x x x
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application
with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both
actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this rule governing
consolidation of the civil and criminal actions." (Emphasis supplied)
o
criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed before the
commencement of the criminal action, the civil action, if still
pending, was suspended upon the filing of the criminal action
until final judgment was rendered in the criminal action. This
rule applied only to the separate civil action filed to recover
liability ex-delicto. The rule did not apply to independent civil
actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code, which could proceed independently regardless of the
filing of the criminal action.
in the criminal case such that the resolution of the issues in the civil cases would
also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that Civil Case No.
Q-98-34308 pending before RTC-Branch 77, and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349,
pending before RTC-Branch 84, are principally for the determination of whether a
loan was obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether petitioner
executed a real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT No.
N-173163. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 90721 before MeTC-Branch 43,
involves the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in executing
an affidavit of loss to support his request for issuance of a new owners duplicate
copy of TCT No. N-173163.
It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed
independently of each other. Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases, it
will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for
perjury. The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real estate
mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and
fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT No. N-173163.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as
to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of
the civil case, the following requisites must be present:
(1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based;
(2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the
guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and
(3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
022 Pimentel v. Pimentel
G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010
TOPIC: RULE 111 Prejudicial Question
PONENTE: CARPIO, J.:
NATURE: a petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS:
1. 25 October 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap (private
respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R.
Pimentel (petitioner), before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
2. On 7 February 2005, petitioner received summons to appear before the
(RTC Antipolo) for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case (Maria
Chrysantine Lorenza L. Pimentel v. Joselito Pimentel) for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground
of psychological incapacity.
3. On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the
proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence
of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship
between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the
outcome of Civil Case No. 04-7392 would have a bearing in the criminal
case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City.
4.
RTC QUEZON CITY - the pendency of the case before the RTC
Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the
criminal case before it. The RTC Quezon City held that the issues in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415 are the injuries sustained by respondent
and whether the case could be tried even if the validity of petitioners
marriage with respondent is in question.
5. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the
Court of Appeals.
6. CA dismissed petition. Ruled that in the criminal case for frustrated
parricide, the issue is whether the offender commenced the commission
of the crime of parricide directly by overt acts and did not perform all the
acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action
for annulment of marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The Court
of Appeals ruled that even if the marriage between petitioner and
respondent would be declared void, it would be immaterial to the
criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts
constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been
committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is required for the
charge of frustrated parricide is that at the time of the commission of the
crime, the marriage is still subsisting.
ISSUE(S): Whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a
prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for
frustrated parricide against petitioner.
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
1. Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure: Section 7.
Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
2. The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the
filing of the criminal action. In this case, the Information for Frustrated
Parricide was dated 30 August 2004. It was raffled to RTC Quezon City
on 25 October 2004 as per the stamped date of receipt on the
Information. The RTC Quezon City set Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415
for pre-trial and trial on 14 February 2005. Petitioner was served
summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February 2005.
3. Respondents petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 was dated 4 November
2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the civil case for
annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated
parricide. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed
subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that
would warrant the suspension of the criminal action. There is a
prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
case.
A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein,
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question
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,
and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said
case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused
would necessarily be determined.
The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key
element in the crime of parricide, which punishes any person who
shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.
The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the
crime of parricide from murder or homicide. However, the issue in the
annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in
the criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the
offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The
issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this
case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is
whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed
respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it
by reason of causes independent of petitioners will.
At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and
respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their
marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted,
will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the
time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage
between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be
held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, he was still married to respondent.
9.