Laws and Cases in the Philippines

FACTS: Accused Clarita S. Nicdao is charged with having committed the crime of Violation of BP 22 in fourteen (14) counts. Respondent was sentenced to pay P1,150,000, plus interest, and to suffer imprisonment equivalent to one (1) year for each violation of BP 22, or a total of fourteen (14) years of imprisonment. On appeal, the decision was affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan. Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 30, 2001, the CA reversed the decision of the lower courts and acquitted respondent (accused). Petitioner seeks a review of the decision with respect to the alleged lack of civil liability of herein respondent. ISSUE: Whether respondent remains civilly liable to herein petitioner. HELD: NO. The basic principle in civil liability ex delicto is that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, crime being one of the five sources of obligations under the Civil Code. A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). In order to be completely free from civil liability, a person's acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases: (1) where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases; (2) where the court declared the accused's liability is not criminal but only civil in nature and (3) where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted. In this petition, the Court finds no reason to ascribe any civil liability to respondent. As found by the CA, respondent's supposed civil liability had already been fully satisfied and extinguished by payment. The statements of the appellate court leave no doubt that respondent, who was acquitted from the charges against her, had already been completely relieved of civil liability.

FACTS: Accused-appellant, alleged to be a member of NPA operating in Donsol, Sorsogon, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Sorsogon, Sorsogon of the crime of murder for the death of one Alfredo Arevalo. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant appealed the decision of the RTC assigning as lone error the trial court's finding that he was guilty of the crime of murder in pursuance or furtherance of rebellion.

FACTS: Herein accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Bais City (Negros Oriental) for the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Double Homicide, aggravated by his failure to help the victim/s, as provided for in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and appreciating in his favor the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Correcional as maximum. Upon the elevation of the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court affirmed the decision as to the damages awarded including moral and exemplary damages, and the indemnity awarded for the victims for the loss of their earning capacity, but modified the period of the indeterminate penalty to six (6) years of Prision Correcional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of Prision Mayor, as maximum. Likewise, said court provided for the subsidiary liability of the accused-appellant's employer pursuant to Article 103 of the RPC. Hence, this appeal, wherein Petitioner insists that he should not be made liable for the mishap as it was actually the Honda motorcycle (the victims') that rammed into the bus he was driving. He seeks the reversal of his present conviction. ISSUE (1): Whether the awarding of the exemplary damages to the victim is correct. HELD (1): YES. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages, which under the prevailing jurisprudence should be in the amount of P25,000, may also be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Here, petitioner failed to render aid or assistance to his victims after the collision. ISSUE (2): Whether the accused-appellant's employer, Vallacar Transit, Inc. is subsidiarily liable. HELD (2): YES. The Supreme Court (SC) adopted the ruling of the CA as to appellant's employer. Under Article 103 of the RPC, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action if it can be shown that: (1) the employer is engaged in any kind of industry; (2) the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3) the accused is insolvent. However, subject to prevailing jurisprudence, the subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary writ of execution against Vallacar Transit, Inc. and upon proof that petitioner is insolvent. ISSUE (3): Whether the CA correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment. HELD (3): NO. The SC was constrained to amend the penalty herein imposed by the CA. The imposable penalty, under Article 365 (2) of the RPC for homicide resulting from reckless imprudence in the use of the motor vehicle is Prision Correcional in its medium and maximum period, which ranges from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years. Under Article 64 of the same law, the penalty shall be divided into three equal portions, each of which shall form one period. The offense having been attended by one aggravating