BABALA V ABAÑO
or innocence.
FACTS: Upon a dispute over a market stall, the respondent Patricio
Canela filed an information for grave coercion in the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Norte, against the petitioner Pedro Babala. The
respondent also filed in said court a civil action against the petitioner
for damages on the same facts alleged in the information for grave
coercion, in which action respondent prayed for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction. In the civil case, the petitioner insisted that
the criminal case should have precedence. The court, issued an order
providing that the trial of the civil case upon the merits was suspended
until after the criminal case shall have been decided and terminated,
but that the hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction might be
proceeded with. The petitioner files for certiorari and prohibition to set
aside the order.
ISSUE: WON the criminal case suspended the trial of the civil case,
including the matter of the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction.
RULING: NO.Although the civil action is suspended until final
judgment in the criminal case, the court is not thereby deprived of its
authority to issue preliminary and auxiliary writs, such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, appointment of receiver, fixing amounts of
bonds, and other processes of similar nature which do not go into the
merits of the case. It was reasoned out that "if those ancillary processes
cannot be resorted to during the suspension, there is no sense in the
rule providing only for suspension, when its effect is to kill the action."
JOSE-COSING V. PEOPLE
FACTS: Rafael Consing and his mother Cecilia de la Cruz (de la Cruz)
obtained a loan from Unicapital which was secured by a real estate
mortgage constituting a parcel of land. With its option to purchase the
mortgaged property, Unicapital purchased one-half of the property and
the other half was purchased by Plus Builders Inc. (Plus Builders), a
joint venture of Unicapital. Before they could develop the property,
they learned that the title to the property was in the names of Po Willie
Yu and Juanito Tan Teng and that the TCT held by petitioners
appeared to be spurious. Petitioner filed a civil case (Pasig civil case)
for injunctive relief, thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from
proceeding against him for the collection. Unicapital initiated a
criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public document
(Makati criminal case) and also sued petitioner (Makati civil case) for
the recovery of a sum of money and damages, with an application for
a writ of preliminary attachment. Petitioner moved to defer his
arraignment in the (Makati criminal case) on the ground of existence
of a prejudicial question due to the pendency of the (Pasig and Makati
civil cases). * The RTC issued an order suspending the proceedings in
the (Makati criminal case) on the ground of the existence of a
prejudicial question.
In the meanwhile, Plus Builders commenced its own suit for damages
against petitioner (Manila civil case) and an information was filed for
estafa through falsification of public document (Cavite criminal case).
Again, petitioner filed a motion to defer the arraignment on the ground
of the existence of a prejudicial question (the pendency of the Pasig
and Manila civil cases) which was denied. Petitioner filed in CA
special civil action for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of TRO
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin his arraignment
and trial in (Cavite criminal case). The CA granted the petition
enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the arraignment and trial until
the Pasig and Manila cases had finally decided. The state assailed the
decision, which the CA granted and reversed its previous ruling.
Petitioner contends that the CA did not consider the pendency of the
(Makati civil case) which raised a prejudicial question, considering
that the resolution of such civil action would include the issue of
whether they falsified a certificate of title or had willfully defrauded of
Unicapital, the resolution of either of which would determine his guilt
ISSUE: WON there exist prejudicial question that would warrant
suspension of the proceeding in the (Makati) criminal case.
RULING: NO, the Unicapital’s complaint (Makati civil case) reveals
that the action was predicated on fraud. As such, the action was one
that could proceed independently of criminal case pursuant to Article
33 of the Civil Code. It is well settled that a civil action based on fraud
may be independently instituted and does not operate as a prejudicial
question that will justify the suspension of a criminal case. Under Rule
111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in the
cases provided in Article 33 (fraud), the independent civil action may
be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In
no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission in the criminal action. Clearly, the Makati
criminal case could not be suspended pending the resolution of the
Makati civil case that Unicapital had filed.
COSCOLLUELA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman received a letter-complaint
from People’s Graftwatch, requesting for assistance to investigate the
anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for the
Province of Negros Occidental in the amount of 20M which allegedly
happened around a month before petitioner (governor) stepped down
from office. Case Building Team of the Office of the ombudsman
conducted its investigation, resulting in the issuance of a final
evaluation report which upgraded the complaint into a criminal case.
The graft investigation officer in its resolution, found a probable cause
for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” and
recommended the filing of the corresponding information. However,
the information was only filed before the Sandiganbayan after 6 years.
Petitioner argued that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of
cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved
only after almost 8 years since the complaint was instituted.
Respondents on the other hand, argue that they still, had to go through
careful review and revision before its final approval. SB denied
petitioner’s Motion to Quash, it held that the preliminary investigation
was actually resolved 1 year and 4 months from the date the complaint
was filed.
ISSUE: WON the Province is precluded from instituting a subsequent
civil case based on the delict if only to recover the amount of 20M in
public funds attributable to the petitioner’s malfeasance.
RULING: NO. The court holds that the petitioners’ right to a speedy
disposition of their criminal case had been violated and that the
criminal case against petitioners should be dismissed. However, it does
not necessarily follow that the petitioners are entirely exculpated from
any civil liability, assuming that the same is proven in a subsequent
case which the province may opt to pursue. Section 2, Rule 111
provides that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the private
offended party pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the delict,
unless the judgement of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil case, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgement that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may institute it in
the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law against the person
who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or
indemnity for the damages suffered.
CO V. MUÑOZ Although in substance and in effect, they have an interest therein, this
fact should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability. While
FACTS: Respondent Muῆoz, a contractor, was charged and arrested they may assist their employees to the extent of supplying the latter's
for perjury in which in several interviews with the radio station he lawyers, as in the present case, the former cannot act independently on
made the statement against petitioner Co., a wealthy businessman that their own behalf, but can only defend the accused. Under Article 103
he manipulated the results of the government bidding involving the of the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the
Masarawag-San Francisco dredging project. Three criminal adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter's
informations for libel were filed before RTC. In his defense, insolvency. To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
respondent countered that he revealed the anomalous government criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final
bidding as a call of public duty. The RTC found petitioner guilty of judgment rendered by a competent court. By the same token, to allow
three counts of libel and was reversed by CA. Petitioner claims them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employees without
damages on the basis of Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and the latter's consent would also result in improperly amending,
claims that the civil liability of an accused may be appealed in case of nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision convicting an
acquittal. Respondent on the other hand argues that since Co did not employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the
reserve his right to separately institute a civil action arising from the employer not only with regard to the former's civil liability, but also
offense, the dismissal of the criminal action bars him from filing the with regard to its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be
present petition to enforce the civil liability. separated from that of the employee. The subsidiary liability of
petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability
ISSUE: WON a private party may appeal the judgment of acquittal of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has
insofar as he seeks to enforce the accused’s civil liability. become final and enforceable by reason of his flight, then the former's
subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable.
RULING: YES, the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 applies to
civil actions to claim civil liability arising from the offense charged,
regardless if the action is instituted with or filed separately from the
criminal action. It governs all claims for civil liability ex delicto. This
is based on Art. 100 of RPC which states that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Each criminal act gives rise to
two libalities: criminal and civil. The Rules precisely require the
judgment to declare if there remains a basis to hold the accused civilly
liable despite acquittal so that the offended party may avail of the
proper remedies to enforce his claim for civil liability ex delicto.
Jurisprudence has enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding
the accused's acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil liability
ex delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the civil liability of the
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which
the accused is acquitted. In this case, the respondent is not civilly liable
because there was no libel committed (privileged communication).
Without a crime, no civil liability ex delicto may be claimed by Co.
that can be pursued.

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. V PEOPLE

FACTS: The accused Macadangdang was found guilty and convicted

of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple homicide,
multiple physical injuries and damages to property. The court ruled
that, in the event of the insolvency of the accused, the petitioner
(employer) shall be liable for the civil liabilities. After the judgement
become final and executory, the accused jumped bailed and remained
at-large. Petitioner filed its notice of appeal from the judgement of the
trial court. The CA ruled that to allow an employer to dispute
independently the civil liability fixed in the criminal case against the
accused-employee would be to a mend, nullify or defeat a final
judgement. Since the notice of appeal filed by the accused had already
been dismissed by the CA, then the judgment of conviction and the
award of civil liability became final and executory. Included In the
civil liability of the accused was the employer’s subsidiary liability.

ISSUE: WON an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense

of its accused-employee, may appeal the judgement of conviction
independently of the accused.

RULING: NO. The accused employee has escaped and refused to

surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have
abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has
become final and executory. The cases dealing with the subsidiary
liability of employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are
not parties to the criminal cases instituted against their employees.