. Elcano v.

Hill
77 SCRA 98, G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977

Facts: Reginald Hill, the respondent in this case, killed the son of the plaintiffs named
Agapito Elcano. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was instituted against him based on
the abovementioned killing. Nevertheless, he was acquitted on the ground that his act
was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake. After the said
judgment, plaintiffs filed a complaint in order to recover damages against the same
defendant Reginald Hill who is a minor, and was married at the time of the occurrence of
the crime alleged he had committed. His father, on the other hand, is Marvin Hill, with
whom he is living and to whom he is getting subsistence.

Thereafter, a motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. However, the Court of First
Instance denied the Motion to dismiss. Upon motion for reconsideration by the
defendants, petitioner’s action for recovery of damages was dismissed. Hence, petitioner
appealed before the SC.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of
Reginald in the criminal case
2. Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill,
notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of,
Reginald is living with and getting subsistence from his father, though still a minor and
was already legally married

Held:
1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case. Under Article 2177 of the New Civil Code, responsibility for fault or
negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code, provided, that the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant. There is a distinction as regards the proof required
in a criminal case and a civil case. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of
evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil case
for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal
act. As such, although there is an acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case, it does
not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict. Therefore, the acquittal is not a bar to the
instant action against him.
2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty. Marvin Hill. Under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. Although parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child,
emancipation by marriage is not absolute. In the instant case, Reginald Hill was living
with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence of the
alleged crime in question. Therefore, Reginald was still subservient to and dependent on
his father, a situation which is not unusual. However, inasmuch as it is evident that
Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become
subsidiary to that of his son.