This is a petition for a review on certiorari of the order of the Court of First instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch III, dated 25 of February 1971, dismissing the complaint for damages, and the order dated 27 March 1971 denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of aforesaid order.
FACTS:
On the 24 of September 1968, Florencio Bonite was hit by a truck driven by private respondent. As a result of which, Bonite died on that same day. A criminal complaint for homicide through Reckless Imprudence was filed by the surviving heirs (now petitioners) against the respondent Abamonga. Petitioners through their counsel, as private prosecutor, actively participated in the prosecution of the criminal case against the accused.
After trial on the merits, the court acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On 28 December 1970, petitioners filed an action for recovery of damages against the same accused for the death of Bonite, with the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, 16th Judicial District, Branch III. The court a quo dismissed the complaint for damages on 25 February 1971. In its ruling, the court held that since the plaintiffs did not reserve the right to file and independent civil action, and the fact that they have been represented by a private prosecutor in the prosecution of the criminal case, the action presently filed by the plaintiffs is already res adjudicata. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the order but the same was denied.
Hence, the filing of this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an independent civil action for damages, under Article 29 of the Civil Code, is deemed barred by petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a reservation to file a separate civil action and by their active participation in the prosecution of such criminal action.
RULING:
Civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, where the acquittal is based on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted and requires only a preponderance of evidence. This is pursuant to the express provision of Article 29 of the Civil Code.
In the case at bar, the criminal case for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence was dismissed on the ground that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly, petitioners have the right to file an independent civil action for damages
The court held that the petitioners may also base such separate civil action for damages on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Acquital of the accused from the charge of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, is not a bar to a subsequent civil action for the recovery of civil liability, arising not from criminal negligence, but from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not punishable by law" as well as acts that may be criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damage in both scores (delict and quasi-delict).
Article 29 of the Civil Code does not state that the right to file an independent civil action for damages (under said article) can be availed of only in offenses not arising from a tortious act. The only requisite to file a civil action from damages is that the accused must have been acquitted in the criminal action based on reasonable doubt. When the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish.
Contrary to private respondent's claim, Article 33 of the Civil Code cannot apply in this case for it assumes a defamation, fraud, or physical injuries intentionally committed. The death of the deceased in the case at bar was alleged to be the result of criminal negligence, i.e., not inflicted with malice. Criminal negligence under the Revised Penal Code punishes the negligent or reckless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty. As reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not mentioned in Article 33, no independent civil action for damages arising from reckless imprudence or criminal negligence may be instituted under said article. It is, therefore, not applicable to the case at bar.
The court a quo's ruling that the petitioners did not reserve the right to file an independent civil action is without merit. Article 29 does not include any reservation requirement to institute an independent civil action. It allows an action for damages against the accused upon the latter's acquittal in the criminal case based on reasonable doubt. The reservation requirement of the Rules on Criminal Procedure has also been declared as not in accordance with law. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to substantive law, i.e. the Civil Code, which does not require such a reservation. This provision has been deleted from Section 2, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, declaring such requirement of reservation as ineffective.
Petitioners active participation in the prosecution of the criminal action does not bar them from filing an independent and separate civil action for damages under Article 29 of the Civil Code.
The Orders dated 25 February 1971 and 27 March 1971 of the court a quo was reversed and set aside, and a new one is entered reinstating the action for recovery of damages by the petitioners and directing the said court to proceed trial with the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment