ACTIONS NOT DEEMED INSTITUTED
total sum of P100 million. The information for libel
1 MANIAGO V CA
FACTS:
Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses transporting
employees of Texas Instruments from Baguio City
Proper to Loakan, Baguio City.
One of the buses figured in an accident with a
passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado.
A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property and multiple physical injuries was
filed against Maniago and a month after, a civil case for
damages was also then filed against him.
Maniago moved to suspend the proceedings in the civil
case contending that Boado failed to reserve his right to
institute the said civil action independently. Boada
contended that the civil action which he filed was based
on quasi-delicto, which could proceed separately even
without express reservation.
RTC and CA denied the motion. Hence appeal to SC by
Maniago.
ISSUE: May the civil action proceed independently from
the criminal action?
RULING:
No. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure of
1988, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action
for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with
the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
In this case, Boado failed to make any express
reservation in filing a civil action. The pendency of the
criminal complaint warranted suspension of the civil
against until final judgment of the former.
Note: 1988 Rules of Criminal Procedure that’s why
different ruling.
EFFECT OF NON PAYMENT OF DOCKET
3 GENERAL, vs. CLARAVALL
FACTS:
Benneth Thelmo filed with the Office of the
Public Prosecutor of Rizal a sworn complaint accusing
Honesto General and another person of libel, and
alleged that by reason of the offense he (Thelmo) had
suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages in the
subsequently filed with the RTC at Pasig, after
preliminary investigation, did not however contain any
allegation respecting the damages due the offended
party.
At the trial, the defense raised the issue of non-
payment of the docket fees corresponding to the claim
of damages contained in Thelmo's sworn complaint
before the fiscal, as a bar to Thelmo's pursuing his civil
action therefor.
The trial Court overruled the objection, by Order
dated March 28, 1990. It also denied the defendants'
motion for reconsideration and motion for suspension of
proceedings, by another Order dated May 17, 1990.
General and his co-accused applied for a writ
of certiorari to annul the aforesaid Orders of the Trial
Court.
ISSUE: Whether non-payment of docket fees
corresponding to the claim of damages bars a civil
action
RULING:
.No.
The Court declares for the guidance of all
concerned that when a civil action is deemed impliedly
instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1,
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court—because the offended
party has NOT waived the civil action, or reserved the
right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action
prior to the criminal action—the rule is as follows:
1) when "the amount of damages, other than
actual, is alleged in the complaint or information" filed in
court, then "the corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for
trial;"
2) in any other case, however—i.e., when the
amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint
or information filed in court, the corresponding filing
fees need not be paid and shall simply "constitute a
first lien on the judgment, except in an award for
actual damages.
Petition is dismissed.
COUNTERCLAIM IN THE CRIMINAL CASES
4 OSCAR MACCAY vs NOBELA
FACTS:
Adelaida Potenciano and Oscar Maccay had a
good relationship with Spouses Prudencioand Serlina
Nobela after the former sold Maccay’s land to the latter
in purchasing the land. Potenciano and the wife Nobela
went to a lawyer and executed a Deed of Sale prepared
and notarized Nobela paid Php 300,00 to the “couple”
and in turn" she was given the Deed of Sale" the tax
declaration" the tax receipt and other documents.
Potenciano went to the Eastern Police District
Headquarters and executed an affidavit-complaint
against the accused spouses relating that she was
fooled by Prudencio and Serlina Nobela. Sps Nobela
were surprised to receive an invitation from Col. Nestor
E. Cruz regarding the complaint of Potenciano for Estafa
and Theft.
Petitioner Maccay filed the criminal complaint
against respondent spouses for Estafa through
Falsification of Public Document before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal.
The trial court found respondent spouses
innocent and ordered petitioners to reimburse
respondent spouses P300,000 and to pay damages and
attorneys fees.
The appellate court denied petitioners appeal
and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate
court also denied petitioners MR.
ISSUES: 1. Whether the trial court may rule on the
civil liability of complainant in a criminal case where
the civil action was not reserved or filed separately;
2. Whether a witness, who is not a party to the
case, may be held liable for damages.
RULING:
1. A court trying a criminal case cannot
award damages in favor of the accused. The task of
the trial court is limited to determining the guilt of
the accused and if proper, to determine his civil
liability. A criminal case is not the proper
proceedings to determine the private complainants
civil liability, if any.
The appellate court erred in affirming the trial
courts award of damages by justifying it as a
counterclaim. Nothing in the records shows that
respondent spouses filed or attempted to file a
counterclaim. The 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
prohibit counterclaims in criminal cases. Section 1 of
Rule 111 provides:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil
actions.
(a) x x x
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal
case, but any cause of action which could have been the
subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
2. The trial court also erred in holding
prosecution witness petitioner Potenciano, together with
complainant petitioner Maccay, liable for damages to
respondent spouses. A judgment cannot bind persons
who are not parties to the action. A decision of a court
cannot operate to divest the rights of a person who is not
a party to the case. The records clearly show that
petitioner Potenciano is not a party to this case. The
Information filed by the prosecutor had only petitioner
Maccay as its complainant. The Verification attached to
the Information had only petitioner Maccay signing as
complainant. Nothing in the records shows that petitioner
Potenciano played a role other than being a witness for
the prosecution.
RTC’s Decision is AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
1. The order to reimburse the P300,000 to respondent
spouses Prudencio and Serlina Nobela is deleted;
2. The award of P50,000 as moral damages and the
award of P40,000 as attorneys fees are likewise deleted.
RULE WITH BP 22
5 HYATT VS. ASIA DYNAMIC
Facts:
Respondent issued several checks in favor of
petitioner as payment. The checks, however, were
dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground of
insufficient funds/account closed.
Petitioner Hyatt Industrial filed before RTC-
Mandaluyong a complaint for recovery of sum of money
against respondent Asia Dynamic. The complaint
alleged that respondent purchased from petitioner
various electrical conduits and fittings amounting
P1,622,467.14. The complaint further alleged that
respondent failed to pay despite demand.
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that there is a violation in the Section 1(b) of
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
which prohibits the filing of a separate civil action in B.P.
22 cases.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner violated Section 1(b) of
Rule 111of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
when it filed the collection case against the respondent
in the RTC.
Held:
Yes. It appears that prior to the filing of the case
for recovery of sum of money before the RTC-
Mandaluyong, petitioner had already filed separate
criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22 against the
officers of respondent corporation and are pending
before the MTC of Pasig City. These cases involve the
same checks which are the subjects of collection case
before RTC-Mandaluyong.
The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the
Court of Appeals that upon filing of the criminal cases for
violation of B.P. 22, the civil action for the recovery of the
amount of the checks was also impliedly instituted under
Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
Under the present revised Rules, the criminal
action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include
the corresponding civil action. The reservation to file a
separate civil action is no longer needed as provided in
the Rules of Court Rule 111 Sec. 1 Par (b).
APPEARANCE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR
ESTOPPEL/BP 22
6 RODRIGUEZ V FONPERRADA
Facts:
Separate Informations were separately filed
against petitioner before proper courts, for Estafa and
violation of Batas BP 22. The Information for violation of
BP 22 was filed in MTC- Quezon City, while the
Information for estafa cases was likewise filed in RTC -
Quezon City.
Petitioner contends that private prosecutor is
barred from appearing before the RTC as his
appearance is limited to the civil aspect which must be
presented and asserted in B.P. 22 cases pending before
the MTC.
RTC held considering that the offended party
had paid the corresponding filing fee for the estafa cases
prior to the filing of the BP 22 cases with the MTC, the
court will allow the private prosecutor to appear and
intervene in the proceedings.
Issues: Whether or not a private prosecutor can be
allowed to intervene and participate in RTC’s
proceedings.
Ruling:
Yes.
A single act of issuing a bouncing check may
give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). The
Rules of Court allow the offended party to intervene via a
private prosecutor in each of these two penal
proceedings.
However, the recovery of the single civil liability
arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing check in
either criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil
liability in the other criminal action. While the law allows
two simultaneous civil remedies for the offended party, it
authorizes recovery in only one. In short, while two
crimes arise from a single set of facts, only one civil
liability attaches to it.
APPEAL AFTER ACQUITTAL:
9 MANANTANG V CA
Facts: Manantan was charged with reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide as alleged, he sideswipe a
passenger jeep resulting to the death of the passenger
– Ruben Nicolas. It was found that Manantan was
intoxicated for having consumed 12 bottles during the
accident.
RTC found the accused not guilty of the crime charged.
However, the Nicolas spouses appealed the decision
and prayed that indemnity and damages be payed to
them. CA held that Manantan is civilly liable for his
negligent and reckless act of driving.
Manantan argued that CA’s modification has placed his
acquittal in suspension and puts him in double jeopardy.
For double jeopardy to exist, the following
elements must be established: (a) a first
jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second; (2) the first jeopardy must have
terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be
for the same offense as the first.
He further posits that his civil liability is predicated on the
offense charged and since acquitted, civil liability cannot
be demanded. The acquittal bars any civil action.
ISSUES:
1. WON the acquittal in the RTC bars the CA to
further inquire into his negligence or reckless
imprudence.
2. WON his acquittal extinguishes his civil liability.
RULING:
1. NO.
There are two kinds of acquittal. One is on the
ground that the accused is not the author of the
act therefore bars demand for civil liability. A
person cannot be held liable for an act or
omission he did not commit.
The second kind is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
 Even if the guilt is not satisfactorily established,
the accused is not exempt from civil liability
which may be proved by preponderance of
evidence.
HENCE, even with Manantan’s acquittal, the CA
is not precluded from determining whether there
exists negligence or reckless imprudence to
warrant a civil action for indemnity and
damages.
2. No.
Perusal of the RTC decision shows that the
acquittal did not clearly state that Manantan was
not negligent or imprudent. The acquittal was
deemed based on Article 29 of CC.
ITC, the acquittal based on reasonable doubt
and a suit to enforce a civil liability for the same
act or omission lies.
FILING OF CIVIL CASE AFTER ACQUITTAL
10 BONITE V ZOSA
Facts: Abamonga was charged with Homicide through
Reckless Imprudence but was acquitted by the CFI-
Oroquieta City for failure to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Later in 1970, the heirs of the
deceased Bonita filed for an action for recovery of
damages against Abamonga with CFI – Misamis
Occidental but the action was dismissed; the plaintiff did
not reserve the right to file an independent civil action.
ISSUE: WON an independent civil action for damages
under Artcile 29 is barred by petitioner’s failure to
reserve.
RULING:
No. When the accused in a criminal case is acquitted on
the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may still be instituted against him,
and only a preponderance of evidence is required to
hold the accused liable. The civil liability is not
extinguished by acquittal of the accused, where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
When the accused in a criminal case is acquitted on the
ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may still be instituted against him,
and only a preponderance of evidence is required to
hold the accused liable. The civil liability is not
extinguished by acquittal of the accused, where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
ITC, petitioners have the right to file an independent civil
action for damages, the acquittal of the accused in the
criminal case notwithstanding.
CONSEQUENCES OF AMENDMENT
11 PHIL. RABBIT VS. PEOPLE
Facts:
Petitioner's employee Napoleon Roman was found guilty
and convicted for reckless imprudence resulting to triple
homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to
property and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and
to pay damages. The court ruled that in case of
insolvency, petitioner shall be liable for the civil liabilities
of the accused; judgment thereby became final and
executory.
From this, petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was
denied by the trial court but thereafter was given due
course. However, CA denied the notice of appeal and
ruled that the institution of a criminal case implied the
institution also of the civil action arising from the offense.
Thus, once determined in the criminal case against the
accused-employee, the employers subsidiary civil
liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.
Issue: W/N an employer, who dutifully participated in the
defense of its accused-employee, may appeal the
judgment of conviction independently of the accused.
Ruling:
No.
To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or
defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
By the same token, to allow them to appeal the final
criminal conviction of their employees without the latter’s
consent would also result in improperly amending,
nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision
convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding and
conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the
former’s civil liability, but also with regard to its amount.
The liability of an employer cannot be separated from
that of the employee.
ACTION BASED ON QUASI-DELICT
12 BERMUDEZ VS. HERRERA
Facts:
Plaintiffs' son Rogelio died after a cargo truck, driven by
Domingo Pontino and owned by Cordova Ng Sun Kwan,
bumped the jeep Rogelio was riding. After which, a
criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless
Imprudence was filed against Domingo Pontino with "A
Reservation to File Separate Civil Action." Thereafter,
plaintiffs instituted a civil action for damages. However,
trial court treated the case as an action based on a crime
in view of the reservation made by the offended party in
the criminal case, also pending before the court, to file a
separate civil action and then ordered the dismissal of
the complaint against defendant Cordova Ng Sun Kwan
and to suspend the hearing of the case against Domingo
Pontino until after the criminal case for Homicide
Through Reckless Imprudence is finally terminated.
Issue: W/N the civil action filed by the plaintiffs-
appellants is founded on crime or on quasi-delict
Ruling:
Quasi-Delict.
READ Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court...
Also, in cases of negligence, the injured party or his
heirs has the choice between an action to enforce the
civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi- delict
under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code.
In this case, the action filed by plaintiffs was an action for
damages based on quasi-delict. The fact that appellants
reserved their right in the criminal case to file an
independent civil action did not preclude them from
choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.
RECOVERY OF A SUM OF MONEY AND ESTAFA
13 BORDADOR V. LUZ
FACTS:
Petitioners were engaged in the business of purchase
and sale of jewelry and respondent Brigida Luz, was
their regular customer.
On several occasions, respondent Deganos, brother of
Luz, received several pieces of gold and jewelry from
petitioners amounting to P382, 816. These items and
their prices were indicated in seventeen receipts
covering the same. 11 of the receipts stated that they
were received for a certain Aquino, a niece of Deganos,
and the remaining 6 receipts indicated that they were
received for Luz.
Deganos was supposed to sell the items at a profit and
thereafter remit the proceeds and return the unsold
items to Bordador. Deganos remitted only the sum of
P53, 207. He neither paid the balance of the sales
proceeds, nor did he return any unsold item to
petitioners.
The total of his unpaid account to Bordador, including
interest, reached the sum of P725, 463.98. Petitioners
eventually filed a complaint in the barangay court against
Deganos to recover said amount.
In the BRgy. Proceeding a compromise agreement came
out, Deganos obligated himself to pay petitioners, on
installment basis, the balance of his account plus
interest thereon. However, he failed to comply with his
aforestated undertakings.
Petitioners instituted a complaint for recovery of sum of
money and damages, with an application for
preliminary attachment against Deganos and Luz.
Deganos and Luz was also charged with estafa.
During the trial of the civil case, petitioners claimed that
Deganos acted as agent of Luz when received the
subject items of jewelry, and because he failed to pay for
the same, Luz, as principal, and her spouse are
solidarily liable with him
Trial court ruled that only Deganos was liable to
Bordador for the amount and damages claimed. It held
that while Luz did have transactions with petitioners in
the past, the items involved were already paid for and all
that Luz owed Bordador was the sum or P21, 483
representing interest on the principal account which she
had previously paid for.
CA affirmed TC’s decision
ISSUE:
Whether the Civil Case for action for damages may be
instituted separately from the criminal action.
HELD:
Yes.
Petitioners have apparently lost sight of Article 33 of the
Civil Code which provides that in cases involving alleged
fraudulent acts, 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.
It is worth noting that this civil case was instituted four
years before the criminal case for estafa was filed, and
that although there was a move to consolidate both
cases, the same was denied by the trial court.
Consequently, it was the duty of the two branches of the
Regional Trial Court concerned to independently
proceed with the civil and criminal cases. It will also be
observed that a final judgment rendered in a civil action
absolving the defendant from civil liability is no bar to a
criminal action.
It is clear, therefore, that this civil case may proceed
independently of the criminal case especially because
while both cases are based on the same facts, the
quantum of proof required for holding the parties liable
therein differ. Thus, it is improvident of petitioners to
claim that the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals in the present case would be preemptive of the
outcome of the criminal case. Their fancied fear of
possible conflict between the disposition of this civil case
and the outcome of the pending criminal case is illusory.
LEGAL SEPARATION AND CONCUBINAGE
14 GANDIONICO V. PENARANDA
FACTS:
Private respondent, Teresita Gandionco, filed a
complaint against herein petitioner, Froilan Gandionco
for legal separation on the ground of concubinage as
a civil case. Teresita also filed a criminal complaint of
concubinage against her husband. She likewise filed an
application for the provisional remedy of support pendent
elite which was approved and ordered by the respondent
judge.
Petitioner moved to suspend the action for legal
separation and the incidents consequent thereto such as
the support for pendent elite, in view of the criminal case
for concubinage filed against him. He contends that the
civil action for legal separation is inextricably tied with
the criminal action thus, all proceedings related to legal
separation will have to be suspended and await the
conviction or acquittal of the criminal case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a civil case for legal separation can
proceed pending the resolution of the criminal case for
concubinage.
HELD:
Yes.
A civil action for legal separation on the ground of
concubinage may proceed ahead of, or simultaneously
with, a criminal action for concubinage, because said
civil action is not one to enforce the civil liability arising
from the offense, even if both the civil and criminal
actions arise from or are related to the same offense.
Such civil action is one intended to obtain the right to live
separately, with the legal consequences thereof
including the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of
gains, custody of the children, support and
disqualifications from inheriting from the innocent
spouse. Decree of legal separation may be issued upon
proof by preponderance of evidence, where no criminal
proceeding or conviction is necessary.
Furthermore, the support pendente lite, as a remedy,
can be availed of in an action for legal separation, and
granted at the discretion of the judge. If in case, the
petitioner finds the amount of support pendente lite
ordered as too onerous, he can always file a motion to
modify or reduce the same.
DEATH DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL
15 PP VS ABUNGAN
FACTS
Appellant Abungan, together with Randy Pascua and
Ernesto Ragonton Jr. (both at large), were charged with
murder. RTC found them guilty and sentenced the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua including indemnification
in the amount of 50,000.00. A Notice of Appeal was filed.
Briefs were submitted where the case was deemed
submitted for resolution. However during the pendency
of the appeal, the court was informed that Appellant
Abungan had died at the NBP Hospital. A death cert was
attached.
ISSUE
W/N the death of appellant extinguished his criminal and
civil liabilities.
HELD
Yes, for those based solely on delict.
In PP vs Bayotas, "Death of the accused pending appeal
of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely thereon." Corollarily, the
claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of (the) accused, if the same may also be predicated on
a source of obligation other than delict.
ITC, because he died during the pendency of the appeal
and before the finality of the judgment against him, his
civil liability arising from the crime or delict (civil liability
ex delicto) was also extinguished. It must be added,
though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of
obligation other than delict. For this reason, the victims
may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may
be warranted by law and procedural rules.
SEC. 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.

SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
16 ARK TRAVEL VS PRESIDING JUDGE
FACTS
Records show that Ark Travel filed a complaint for
collection of sum of money, torts and damages against
New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI) and
Angelina T. Rivera with RTC-Makati docketed as Civil
Case No. 95-1542. In said civil case, private
respondents Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira were
presented by NFMAI as witnesses. They executed their
respective sworn statements and testified before the trial
court that NFMAI has no outstanding obligation with Ark
Travel as the same had been paid in full.
Pet Ark Travel Express, Inc. also filed with the City
Prosecutor of Makati a criminal complaint for False
Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the RPC
against private respondents. The City Prosecutor found
probable cause and filed Informations.
petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action
may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the
criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution
rests.(Emphasis supplied)
ITC, it is noted that at the time of the filing of the criminal
complaints, the civil case filed by Ark Travel is still
pending decision. Ark Travel has yet to prove the validity
of its monetary claims and damages against NFMAI. The
civil case is so intimately connected with the subject
crime that it is determinative of the guilt or innocence of
the respondents in the criminal cases. Hence, pending
determination of the falsity of the subject testimonies of
private respondents in the civil case, the criminal action
for false testimony must perforce be SUSPENDED not
withdrawn.

PR filed a petition for review of the City Prosecutors

resolution with the DOJ. Such resolution was reversed
and a Motion to Withdraw Information was filed.

Pet filed an Urgent Petition for Automatic Review with

the DOJ which was treated as a motion for
reconsideration. Prosecutor was then directed to
proceed with the prosecution of Criminal Cases Nos.
200894 and 200895. The Motion to Withdraw
Information was then denied.

M4R of PR was also denied. Elevated to RTC via a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65. RTC ordered that
the Criminal Cases be withdrawn.

M4R of Pet was denied. Petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

W/N the a prejudicial question exist.

HELD

Yes.

Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: