Escueta v.

Fandialan (1974)  accrued on July 2, 1952 (when the physical injuries

were inflicted). Since Escueta expressly reserved his
Teehankee, ​J.
right to institute a civil action, such does not fall under
I. FACTS: Please take note of the dates,  that category of civil actions based upon a criminal
guys since this case is about  offense which are suspended to await the outcome of
prescription. TY Jisoo.   the criminal case. Therefore, Escueta’s contention
that his cause accrued on August 31, 1955 (judgment
July 2, 1952​ — Fandalian allegedly inflicted several of conviction for physical injuries in the criminal case)
physical injuries on Escueta for which he was charged is untenable. The civil action will fall under Article 33
with the crime of frustrated homicide but was as a civil action that did not arise upon the result of a
convicted of slight physical injuries by the CFI of criminal action but from the defendant’s acts of
Laguna. infliction of physical injuries.
August 31, 1955​ — the above judgment was affirmed On the applicable period of prescription 
by the Court of Appeals and became final.
SC holds that the lower court is correct in saying that
June 20, 1956 — Escueta, having reserved his right the applicable prescriptive period is 4 years under
to institute a separate civil action, filed with the CFI a Article 1146 (1) of the Civil Code as against the
civil complaint plaintiff’s contention that it should be Article 1144 (3)
October 31, 1962 — civil complaint was dismissed for which provides for such a 10 year prescriptive period
the lack of interest for actions based “upon a judgment”.

July 5, 1968 — Escueta refiled the civil case. 4 years will apply since Escueta expressly reserved
his right of filing a separate civil action, therefore, he
The CA dismissed the complaint on the ground of had no standing in the criminal action and its
prescription. The instant action filed on 1968 has judgment. Moreover, the verdict of this action will
been barred by the Statute of Limitations because the exclude any civil liability.
crime of physical injuries was committed by the
defendant on July 5, 1952 and the case was only filed On the plaintiff’s contention that the running of 
on July 5, 1968, after the lapse of 16 years, the prescriptive period was interrupted  
considering that the period of prescription applicable Plaintiff alleged that the prescriptive period was
is only 4 years (Art. 1146 (1) Civil Code).   interrupted when he filed the first civil case on June
II. ISSUE:  20, 1956. SC holds that this serves no purpose.
Considering that it was interrupted, it should have
W/N the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint commenced again on Oct. 31, 1962, giving plaintiff 12
on the ground that the action is barred by prescription. days until its prescription on November 12, 1962. The
YES  instant case was only filed July 5, 1968—-plaintiff is
still late.
III. RATIONALE: 
IV. DISPOSITIVE: ​The appealed order of
On the date of accrual of plaintiff’s cause of 
dismissal by the CA is AFFIRMED.  
action for damages 

SC finds that the lower court correctly sustained

defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s cause of action