Cases

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

EN BANC

G.R. No. 138403. August 22, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLLY


ABULENCIA Y COYOS, defendant-appellant.

DECISION

PER CURIAM

Facts:

Defendant-appellant was charged and convicted with rape with homicide. The trial court awarded
P75,000.00 for civil indemnity. The trial court did not award moral nor exemplary damages.

Issue:

Whether the civil aspect of this case can be modified by the court despite not being raised by the
parties.

Held:

Yes. Although this matter has not been raised by the parties, especially the Solicitor General, it is a
settled rule that in a criminal case, an appeal to the Supreme Court throws the whole case open for
review, and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the appealed
judgment, whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not. 33cräläwvirtualibräry

With regard to the civil indemnity, the trial court awarded only P75,000.00. Current jurisprudence has
fixed at P100,000.00 the civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide, which is fully justified and
properly commensurate with the seriousness of that special complex crime.

The trial court did not award moral damages to the victims family. Based on prevailing jurisprudence,
however, moral damages may be awarded to the heirs of the victim without need for pleading or proof
of its basis for their mental, physical and psychological sufferings are too obvious to still require their
recital at the trial. Hence, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 must be awarded.
35cräläwvirtualibräry

In People vs. Lagarto, we held that attendant circumstances may be considered to determine civil
liability. Thus, in view of the evident cruelty inflicted upon Rebelyn, as shown by the multiple burns and
contusions on her body, we grant the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988

REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., and, ADONITA YABUT BERMUDEZ petitioners-appellants,


vs.
HON. JUDGE A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, DOMINGO PONTINO y TACORDA and CORDOVA NG
SUN KWAN, respondents-appellees.

YAP, J.:

Facts:

Domingo Pontino was charged with Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence. Plaintiffs-appellants
filed in the said criminal case "A Reservation to File Separate Civil Action." Then, plaintiffs-
appellants filed a civil case for damages.

Finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action "on the assumption that defendant Pontino's
negligence in the accident of May 10, 1969 constituted a quasi-delict," the trial court stated that
plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a "crime" by reserving in the criminal case their
right to file a separate civil action. Thus, the trial court decided to order 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. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

whether the civil action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is founded on quasi-delict. 

Held:

Yes.

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. If a party chooses the latter, he may hold the
employer solidarity liable for the negligent act of his employee, subject to the employer's defense of
exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family.

In the case at bar, the action filed by the appellants was an action for damages based on quasi-
delict.   The fact that appellants reserved their right in the criminal case to file an independent
1

civil action did not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict.

Article 2177 of the Civil Code, cited in Section 2, of Rule 111, provides that —

Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165732             December 14, 2006

SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY, INC., and ADMER PAJARILLO, petitioners,


vs.
LAURO TANGCO, VAL TANGCO, VERN LARRY TANGCO, VAN LAURO TANGCO, VON
LARRIE TANGCO, VIEN LARI TANGCO and VIVIEN LAURIZ TANGCO, respondent.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Facts:

Pajarillo, a security guard employed by petitioner agency, shot Evangeline Tangco resulting to her
death after she pulled out her gun to deposit the same for safekeeping. Pajarillo was convicted of
Homicide. Respondents filed a complaint for damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting
Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage committed by its security guard. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents.
The CA affirmed the decision, hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the civil action filed was based on quasi-delict.

Held:

Yes.The civil action filed by respondents was not derived from the criminal liability of Pajarillo in the
criminal case but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict which is separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from crime. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in the civil
case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by law.

In Bermudez v. Melencio-Herrera, where the issue involved was whether the civil action filed by
plaintiff-appellants is founded on crime or on quasi-delict, we held:

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. If a party chooses the
latter, he may hold the employer solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee, subject
to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family.

In the case at bar, the action filed by appellant 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Although the judgment in the criminal case finding Pajarillo guilty of Homicide is already final and
executory, such judgment has no relevance or importance to this case. It would have been entirely
different if respondents' cause of action was for damages arising from a delict, in which case the CA
is correct in finding Safeguard to be only subsidiary liable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code.
As clearly shown by the allegations in the complaint, respondents' cause of action is based on quasi-
delict. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, when the injury is caused by the negligence of the
employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the
master or the employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in the supervision over
him after selection or both. The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon petitioners to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.

You might also like