Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 224 views

    Romero V People

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    This case involved a collision between two vehicles driven by Sonny Romero and Jimmy Padua which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Romero was criminally charged but acquitted in the lower courts. However, the courts held Romero civilly liable and ordered him to pay damages. Romero appealed, arguing his acquittal freed him from civil liability. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares the underlying act did not occur. The Court affirmed Romero's civil liability because his acquittal was due to reasonable doubt in the criminal case, not a finding that the collision did not happen.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Romero V People

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    224 views2 pages
    This case involved a collision between two vehicles driven by Sonny Romero and Jimmy Padua which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Romero was criminally charged but acquitted in the lower courts. However, the courts held Romero civilly liable and ordered him to pay damages. Romero appealed, arguing his acquittal freed him from civil liability. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares the underlying act did not occur. The Court affirmed Romero's civil liability because his acquittal was due to reasonable doubt in the criminal case, not a finding that the collision did not happen.

    Original Description:

    Romero vs. People

    Original Title

    Romero v People.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a collision between two vehicles driven by Sonny Romero and Jimmy Padua which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Romero was criminally charged but acquitted in the lower courts. However, the courts held Romero civilly liable and ordered him to pay damages. Romero appealed, arguing his acquittal freed him from civil liability. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares the underlying act did not occur. The Court affirmed Romero's civil liability because his acquittal was due to reasonable doubt in the criminal case, not a finding that the collision did not happen.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    224 views2 pages

    Romero V People

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    This case involved a collision between two vehicles driven by Sonny Romero and Jimmy Padua which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Romero was criminally charged but acquitted in the lower courts. However, the courts held Romero civilly liable and ordered him to pay damages. Romero appealed, arguing his acquittal freed him from civil liability. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares the underlying act did not occur. The Court affirmed Romero's civil liability because his acquittal was due to reasonable doubt in the criminal case, not a finding that the collision did not happen.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ROMERO vs PEOPLE

    FACTS:

    JC Liner, driven by petitioner Sonny Romero, collided with Apego Taxi driven by Jimmy Padua which resulted to the
    death of Gerardo Breis, Sr., Arnaldo Breis, Gerardo Breis, Jr.,Rene Montes, Erwin Breis and Jimmy Padua. Luckily,
    Edwin Breis and his son Edmund Breis survived although they sustained serious injuries. As a consequence, petitioner
    was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple serious physical injuries
    with damage to property in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Ocampo, Camarines Sur.

    After trial on the merits, the MTC acquitted petitioner of the crime charged in a decision11 dated November 9, 2000.
    Petitioner was, however, held civilly liable and was ordered to pay the heirs of the victims the total amount of
    ₱3,541,900 by way of actual damages, civil indemnity for death, moral damages, temperate damages and loss of
    earning capacity.

    Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, claiming that the MTC erred in holding
    him civilly liable in view of his acquittal. But denied. Petitioner appealed13 to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 3,
    2005, the CA rendered the assailed decision14 affirming the RTC.

    Petitioner now argues15 that his acquittal should have freed him from payment of civil liability. He also claims that he
    should be totally exonerated from any liability because it was Gerardo Breis, Sr., not the regular driver, Jimmy Padua,
    who was actually driving the taxi at the time of the accident, which was clearly in violation of insurance and
    transportation laws.

    The Court disagreed.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the unproved guilt of Romero beyond reasonable doubt may be a ground of exemption from civil
    liability.

    RULING:

    NO.
    The rule is that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.16 Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if
    the felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof.17
    Every crime gives rise to (1) a criminal action for the punishment of the guilty party and (2) a civil action for the
    restitution of the thing, repair of the damage, and indemnification for the losses.

    In this connection, the relevant portions of Section 2, Rule 111 and Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provide:
    Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.

    The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based
    on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
    omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

    Sec. 2. Contents of the judgment.


    In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove
    the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall
    determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
    The court ruled the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not necessarily extinguish his civil liability, unless
    the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

    In view of the pronouncements of the MTC and the RTC, the Court agree with the conclusion of the CA that petitioner
    was acquitted not because he did not commit the crime charged but because the RTC and the MTC could not ascertain
    with moral conviction the wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus at the time of the accident.
    Put differently, petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    However, his civil liability for the death, injuries and damages arising from the collision is another matter.

    You might also like