Art 100; Civil liability; effect of acquittal

2000 No V
b) Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the
accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil
liability, are:
1. When the civil action is baaed on obligations not arising from the act
complained of as a felony;
2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4. Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil
obligation;
5. Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34
of the New Civil Code;
7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which
the civil liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which
the accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
Art 101; Civil liability; PD 603; persons liable for acts committed by minor
or insane
1975 No. XVIII
Who are civilly liable for the act of the insane or minor exempt from
criminal liability?
Answer
Under par, 1 of Art. 101, those civilly liable for the act of the insane or minor
exempt from criminal liability are those who have such person under their legal authority,
guardianship or control except if there was no fault or negligence on their part. Under
Presidential Decree No. 603, the civil liability of a youthful offender shall devolve upon
his father, and in case of his death or incapacity, upon his mother, or in case of her death
or incapacity, upon the guardian. (Art. 201).
If they are insolvent, the insane or minor shall respond with his property which
are not exempt from execution.
Art 102; Subsidiary liability; hotel owner
1977 No V-a
T lodged in the Maharlika Hotel without notifying the management of the hotel
of the goods he brought along with him. Neither did he follow the directions
of the hotel with respect to the care and vigilance over said goods. One evening, the
bellboy of the hotel poked a gun on T and divested him of his goods.
Assuming that the said bellboy absconded, may the owner of the hotel be made
subsidiarily liable for the restitution of said goods, or to pay the value thereof? Reason
fully.
Answer
The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily civilly liable for the restitution of the goods
or to pay the value thereof. The nature of the business of the hotel is to provide not only
lodging for the guests but also security to their persons and effects. The necessity for this
security is apparent from the provisions of Articles 1998-2003 of the new Civil Code and
Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code. The security mentioned is not confined to effects
delivered to the hotel management for safekeeping but also to all effects brought in the
hotel. The reason is that the hotel management has supervision and control over their inns
and the premises thereof. (De los Santos v. Tam Kheng, CA 58 O.G. 7693). Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides for subsidiary civil liability of the
innkeeper for any robbery through violence or intimidation committed by the innkeeper's
employees as in the problem which is committed by the bellboy of the hotel.
Art 102; Subsidiary liability; innkeepers, owners of establishments
1986 No. 8:
Aristarchus, a resident of Iloilo, checked in at the Manila Hotel while attending to
some business in Manila. Heeding the notice posted in his room requesting the tenants to
deposit their valuables in one of the hotel's deposit boxes near the reception counter in the
lobby, Aristarchus deposited P10,000.00 cash in one of the hotel's deposit boxes. As he
was about to go up to his room, armed men entered the lobby, told everybody to lie flat
on the floor, and divested the guests of their money and valuables. They also forcibly
opened the safety deposit boxes, scooped out their contents and fled. Aristarchus sued the
hotel claiming that the hotel is subsidiarily liable for the P10,000.00 deposited in the
safety deposit box and for P5,000.00 taken from his wallet while he was lying face down
on the floor.
Is the hotel subsidiarily liable? Explain. Answer:
Manila Hotel is not subsidiarily civilly liable. Although Aristarchus has complied
with the notice of the hotel regarding the depositing of his money in one of the hotel's
deposit boxes, the hotel is not liable as such were lost because of robbery committed with
violence or intimidation against persons. (Art 102 par. 2, RPC)
Art 103; Subsidiary civil liability; employers
1998 No XI.
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which required medical
attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to
physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to suffer
a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in
the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees.
 Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was
returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of
execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on-the ground that the decision
made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not impleaded in the case.
How will you resolve the motion? [5%] Answer:
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an
industry (transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly
liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no
mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates
for such liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never
excused. And since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee
cannot pay. he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was
duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given
the opportunity to be heard.
Art 103; Subsidiary liability; employer
1988 No. 6:
Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar
central, while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in
injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Abad P12,000. The
respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil service
liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed that the accused
was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for execution
of the employers subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having
been notified that his driver was facing a criminal charge, a separate action had to be
filed. Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed.
Decide the case.
Answer:
Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver
was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a
notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code (that there is employer- employee relationship, that the
employer is engaged in an industry and that the driver is insolvent).
Art 104; Civil liability; components
1978 No. II-c
Discuss the components of civil liability arising from crimes. Do these
components exist in all crimes? Explain.
Answer
The components of civil liability are restitution, reparation for damages caused
and indemnification for consequential damages. These components do not exist in all
crimes. For example, if the crime is not against property, like less serious physical
injuries, there is no restitution nor reparation for damages
caused. In the crime of occupation of real property, which is a crime against property,
these three forms of civil liability may exist, that is, there must be restoration of the
property occupied, reparation for any damages caused, and indemnification for any
damages suffered by the commission of the crime.
Art 104; Civil liability; restitution
1975 No. VIII
A stole the car of B and later sold it to C, who purchased the car in good faith, for
valuable consideration, and without any knowledge that it was stolen. A was
subsequently convicted for the theft of the car and the judgment became final and
executory. B thereafter filed a petition in the criminal case that an order be issued
directing C to return the car to him (B) but C opposed the petition alleging that he bought
the car in good faith and that the proper relief is for B to file a separate civil action before
the proper court where the ownership of the car may be litigated. The court granted B's
petition and ordered C to return the car to
A. Is the court order correct? Why?
Answer
a) The order of the court is correct. The civil liability of the accused in the crime
of theft, which is against property, includes restitution of the thing stolen, even if it be
found in the possession of another who acquired it in good faith, (Art. 106, Revised Penal
Code). The order of restitution may be made in the same criminal case upon petition of
the complainant. There is no need for a separate civil action. (Reyes v. Ruiz, 27 Phil.
478).
Art 112; Civil liability; effect of acquittal
1984 No. 6
Does acquittal in a criminal case carry with it exemption from civil liability?
Explain.
Answer;
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
Except in those instances where the law provides for the prosecution of the
criminal action independently of the civil action, about the only known case where the
accused may be exempted from civil liability is the case of his acquittal from the criminal
responsibility and its judgment in court accordingly makes a pronouncement that the
basis for civil liability does not exist.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
Acquittal in a criminal case carries with its exemption from civil liability when
there is a declaration in A final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might
arise does not exist (Sec. 3 C Rule 111, Rules of Ct.) (Tan vs. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., et
a1 91 Phil. 672) In the following cases, acquittal in the criminal action does not carry
with it exemption from civil liability: 1) When the acquittal is on the ground that the guilt
of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Art 29, Civil Code); 2)
When the acquittal is due to an exempting circumstance except accident and lawful or
insuperable cause (Art 12, Rev, Penal Code); 3) in cases of quasi-delict (Art 2177 Civil
Code) 4) when the finding of the court in acquitting the accused is that there is only civil
responsibility and not criminal responsibility (De Guzman et al vs. Alva et al 51
O.G. 1311) 5) in case of independent civil action under articles 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the
Civil Code)
Art 112; Civil liability; effect of acquittal
1988 No. 5:
c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment?
Explain briefly.
Answer:
c) If an accused is acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If
there is an express waiver of the liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate
civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs. Jalandoni),
Art 112; Civil liability; effect of acquittal
1975 No. V
As a rule, if the offender in a criminal case is acquitted, his civil liability is also
extinguished. What are the exceptions?
Answer
a) If the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt
(Art. 29, Civil Code).
b) If the acquittal is due to non-imputability or an exempting circumstance.
c) In independent civil actions for torts under Articles 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the
Civil Code.
d) In case the civil action is based on a quasi-delict under Article 2177 of the
Code.
e) In case the judgment in the criminal action does not declare that the fact upon
which the civil action might arise does not exist (Rule III, Sec. 3. par. c).
Art 112; Civil liability; effect of acquittal
2000 No IX
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette
vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00
p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the
traffic light. While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A
approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was
taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the
car continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip
and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which
eventually caused his death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the
end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been
established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of
C? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's
acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution 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 be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
of evidence {Art. 29, CC).
If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the
civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act
or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi- delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate
and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code [Arts, 31,
2176, 2177, CC}.