Phili

ppineRabbi tBusLi nes,Inc.(PRBL)v s. earnings,andnott hegrossear nings,ist o

Peopl e beut ilizedi nthecomput ati
on.Not et hatin
thepr esentcase,bot htheCour tofAppeal s
andt het ri
alcourtusednetear nings,not
Principle:
CivilLi
abil
it
yarisi
ngf r
om felony grosse arni
ngsinc omputinglosso fearning
capaci ty .Theamountofnetear ningswas
Facts:InMay16,1995,PRBLBus,dr ivenby ar ri
ved ataf terdeducting the necessar y
petit
ioner Pl eyto, was t r
aveli
ng al ong expenses( peggedat50%ofgr ossi ncome)
MacAr t
hurHi ghwayinGer ona,Tarl
acbound f rom t he gr oss annual i ncome. Thi s
forVi gan,IlocosSur .Itwasdr i
zzl
ingt hat comput ati
on i s in accord wi t
h set t
led
mor ningandt hemacadam r oadwaswet . j
ur i
spr udence, i
ncludi
ngtheVi l
laReycase.
Righti nfrontoft hebus,headednor th,was
the t ri
cycle owned and dr iven by one
Rodol foEsguer r
a. Peopl ev .Wahiman
Accor ding t
o Rol ly Orpi
lla,a wi tness and Pr
inci
ple:
MURDER
oneoft hebuspassenger s,Pl eytot ri
edt o
overtakeEsguer ra’
st ri
cyclebuthi titinstead.
FACTS; The appel lant Wahi man was
Pleytot henswer vedi ntot hel eftopposi t
e
charged oft he cr ime ofmur derf ort he
l
ane.Comi ng down t he l ane,some f i
ft
deaty
h ofJose.Thaton oraboutApr il2,
met ersaway ,wasasout hboundMi t
subi shi
2003,Jose,t hemanageroft hecompany
Lancercar ,drivenbyAr nul f
oAsunci on.In
was gun down whi le goi ng t ot he st af f
the car seat ed besi de Ar nul fo was hi s
houseoft hecompanybyamanr idingi na
brother-i
n-l
aw,Ri car doLomboy ,whi l
ei nt
blhe
ackmot or cy cle.Oneoft heguar dondut y
back seat wer e Ri cardo’ s 18- year ol d
wasabl et oi dent ifyt heper sont obet he
daught erCarmel aandherf riend,oneRhi no
appellanti nt hecase.Dur i
ngt het rial
,t he
Daba.PRBLBussmashedhead- ont hecar ,
accused admi tted t he ki l
ling. Howev er,
kil
li
ng Ar nulf
o and Ri car do i nst antl
y.
wheni twasappel lant ’sturnt ot est if
y,he
Carmel a and Rhi no suf fered i njuri
es,but
narratedt hatatt het imeoft heki l
ling,he
onlyCar melarequir edhospi talizat i
on. wasat t
endi ngabi rthdaycel ebr ati
onofhi s
brother -
in-law.TheRTChowev er ,conv icted
Issue: THE COURT OF APPEALS t he accused oft he cr i
me char ged.The
DISREGARDEDTHEDOCTRI NELAI DDOWN accusedcont endedt hatdur ingt het akingof
IN VI LLAREYTRANSI T,I
NC.v .COURTOF ext rajudicial conf essi on, he was not
APPEALS,WHEN I TARBI TRARI LYPEGGED assi stedbyhi scounselandt hatt heey e
THEMONTHLYLI VINGEXPENSESAT50% wi tnessoft hepr osecut iondi dnotact ually
OFGROSSEARNI NGS. seehi m shoot i
ngt hev i
cti
m.At ty.Duml ao,
Hel d: No. howev er,r eiterat ed t hathe assi sted t he
accusedt hr oughoutt hepr oceedi ng.TheCA
Rat io:Peti
ti
oners,i
ntheSupr emeCour tv
iew, affi
rmedt hedeci sionoft helowercour t
.
mi sread the Vi l
l
a Rey Tr ansit case.In
consi deri
ng the ear ni
ng capaci t
y oft he I SSUE; Whet herornott hedeci sionoft heCA
victim asanel ementofdamages,t henet ist obeuphel d.
ear nings,whichiscomput edbydeduct i
ng RULI NG;The cour tr uled int he posi ti
v e.
necessar y expenses f rom t he gr oss Appel lant,int hiscase,howev erpr oceeded
tonar ratethathewashi redf oraf eetoki l
l i
ndemni t
y; hence, t
he PCI B had been
the v ictim. Al so t hat attorney Duml ao subrogat
ed tother i
ghtsand i
nter
est
sof
rei
terated agai n t hat he assi sted t he Calt
exasprivat
ecompl ai
nant
.
accused t hroughout t he pr oceeding.
Mor eov er,theconv icti
onoft heaccusedi s The RTC gr anted the mot i
on. Ri
carze
not mer el
y based on t he ext r
ajudicial assail
ed the Order.He al l
eged t
hatt he
confessi ongi venbyt heaccusedr atheron chargesagainsthi m shoul
dbedi smissed
thet estimonyt hesecur i
tyguar dwhowas becausetheal l
egati
onsi nt
heInfor
mations
about5 met ersawaywhen t he shooting fai
ledtonamePCI Bastrueoff
endedparty
.
was done.The CAA cor rectl
yf ound t he
accusedgui l
tyoft hecr i
meofmur derand
sentenced hi m t o suffert he penal ty of I
ssue:Incaseofof fensesagai
nstpr
oper
ty,
recl
usionPer petua i
st he designati
on oft he name ofthe
of
fendedpartyindi
spensabl
e?

Held:When an of fense shal lhav e been

Ri
car
zev
.CA describedi nthecompl ai
ntwi t
hsuf fi
cient
Facts:Ricarzewasacol l
ect or-
messengerof certaintyast oident i
fytheact ,aner roneous
CSP, acorporati
onengagedi nmessenger ial all
egat ionast ot heper soni njuredshal lbe
servi
ces.Hewasassi gnedt ocollectchecks deemedi mmat erialast hesamei samer e
payablet oCal t
exanddel i
v erthem tot he formal def ect whi ch di d not t end t o
cashier.Itwas di scov ered t hathe t hen prejudice any subst anti
al r i
ght of t he
opened a bank accounti nt he name of defendant .I nt he instantsui tf orest af a
Dante Gut ier
rez,a r egul ar customer of whichi sacr i
meagai nstproper tyundert he
Calt
ex. Ri carze f
orged t he checks he RevisedPenalCode,si ncet hecheck,whi ch
coll
ected and deposi ted i ti nt hatbank wast hesubj ect-matteroft heof fense,was
account. described wi t
h such par ticularity as t o
proper l
yi dentifyt he of f
ense char ged,i t
Calt
ex charged Ricar
ze of est af
a thru becomes i mmat eri
al,f or pur poses of
fal
sif
icat
ionofcommer cialdocuments.In conv i
cting t he accused, t hat i t was
theinfor
mation,Cal
texwasst atedast he establisheddur i
ngt het r
ialt
hatt heof fended
off
endedpartybecausetheprosecutorwas partywasact uall
yPCI BandnotCal t
exas
notinformed thatPCIBank credit
ed the all
egedi ntheinformat i
on.
checkstoCaltex.

Aftertheprosecutionrestedit
scase,Caltex
mov ed t o amend t he informati
on t o Mobi
l
iaPr
oduct
s,I
nc.vUmezawa
substit
utePCIBankast heof fendedparty
. Umezawa,t hent hePr esi
dentandGener al
Ricarzearguedt hattheinfor
mat ioncanno Manager of MPI , organized anot her
l
ongerbeamendedbecausehehadal ready companywi thhiswifeKimiko,andhissister
,
been ar rai
gned under t he or igi
nal Mitsuyo Yaguchi,to be known as Ast em
i
nf or
mat i
onandt hatdoingsowoul dplace Phil
ippinesCorporati
on,withoutknowledge
hi
mi ndoubl ejeopardy. oftheBoar dofDi rector
sofMPI .Thesai d
PCIBankar
guedthatithadre-
credi
tedt
he companywoul d beengaged i nt hesame
amountto Cal
tex t
ot he ext
entoft he business as Mobi l
i
a. Umezawa st ole
product s f rom MPI amount ing t o compl ai
nti sf il
ed.Iti s sett
led thatthe
P3,219,875. 00. MPIand publ ic pr osecut or j
urisdict
ionoft hecourtincr i
minalcasesi s
fi
ledcr i
mi nalcompl ai ntsagai nstUmezawa. determined by t he allegati
ons of t he
Thet ri
alcour tasser tedt hatthecont r
ov ersy compl ai
ntorI nf or
mation and notbyt he
i
nv ol
v i
ngt hecr iminalcaseswasbet ween fi
ndingsbasedont heevi
denceoft hecourt
Umezawa and t he ot herst ockhol der s of aft
ert ri
al.Jur i
sdicti
onisconf erredonlyby
MPI .Italsohel dt hatt heSEC,nott het rial theConst itut
ionorbyt hel awinf or
ceatthe
court,hadj urisdictionov eri ntra-cor porate ti
me oft he fili
ng oft he Information or
controversies. CAaf firmedt her ulingoft he compl ai
nt.Oncej uri
sdi
cti
oni sv est
edi nt
he
RTCt hatt hedi sputebet weenUmezawaand court,itisr etainedupt ot heendoft he
theot herst ockhol der sandof fi
cer sov erthe l
iti
gation.
i
mpl ement at ion of t he MPI ’s st andar d
procedur e i s i ntra-corpor ate i n nat ure;
hence,withint heexcl usivejurisdictionoft he
SEC.The pet iti
onerMPIf i
led t he i nstant
petit
ionf orrev i
ewoncer tiorari.

I
SSUE:
WONCAi
scor
rect
. Peopl
eoft
hePhi
l
ippi
nesv
s.Al
i
nao

HELD:Pat ent l
y,t hen,basedont hemat erial DOCTRI NE: The awar d of exempl ar
y
allegat i
onsoft heI nf ormat ions,t hecour ta damages i sjusti
fi
ed i f an aggrav
ati
ng
quo had excl usi v ej urisdict i
on ov er t he cir
cumst ance,ei
therqualif
yingor generi
c,
crimeschar ged.CAer redi nhol dingt hatt he accompani es the cr i
me. I n the case
disput e bet ween i tand t he r espondent i
s at bar,t he qualif
ying circumst
ance of
i
nt ra-cor porat einnat ure;hence,wi t
hi nt he evi
dentpr emeditat
ionwasdul yall
egedin
excl usivej urisdict ionoft heSEC.Asgl eaned theInf
ormat i
onandpr oveddur i
ngt
hetri
al
from t he mat er ial al l
egat i
ons of t he
FACTS : Gar y Al inao, her ein accused-
Infor mat ions, t he RTC had excl usive
appellant,waschar gedandf oundgui l
tyf or
j
ur isdiction ov er t he cr imes char ged.
the cr ime of mur der wi th ev ident
Accor ding t o Sect i
on20 ofB. P.Bl g.129
premedi tation as t
he qual
ify i
ng
Regi onal Tr i
al Cour ts shal l exer cise
cir
cumst ance, sent encing hi m wi th t he
excl usiveor i
gi nalj urisdi cti
oni nal lcr iminal
appropr i
at epunishmentandor deredtopay
casesnotwi thint heexcl usiv ej urisdictionof
the aggr iev ed party P50, 000.00 f orci v i
l
anycour t,tribunalorbody ,exceptt hose
i
ndemni ty, P120, 000.00 f or mor al
now f al l
ing under t he excl usive and
damages, P75,000.00f oract ualdamageand
concur rent jur isdi ction of the
P30,000. 00 f or exempl ary damage. On
Sandi ganbay an whi ch shal lher eaf ter be
appeal ,t he appellat e cour taf f
ir
med t he
excl usivelyt aken cogni zance of by t he
conviction of t he accused- appell
ant but
l
at ter.Case l aw has i tt hat i n or der t o
modi f
iedt heawar df ordamagespr eviousl y
det ermi ne t he j ur i
sdi ction oft he cour ti n
rul
ed,P75, 000.00 f or ci vil i ndemni ty,
crimi nalcases, t
hecompl aintorI nf ormat i
on
P50,000. 00 f or mor al damages, and
must be exami ned f or t he pur pose of
P25,000. 00 f or t emper at
e damages, and
ascer tainingwhet herornott hef act ssetout
delet
edt heawar df orexempl arydamages.
ther einand t hepr escr i
bed per iod pr ov i
ded
The accused- appellant appeal ed i n t he
forbyl aw ar ewi thi nt hej ur isdictionoft he
Supreme Cour t,
whi ch t he cour thad t he
cour t,and wher et he sai dI nf ormat ion or
oppor
tuni
tytorevi
ew t
he del
eti
on oft
he ongoi ng,she agr eed t o embar k on t he
exemplar
ydamage. remittance busi ness. She agr eed wi th
respondent and Ramon t hat any pr ofi
t
ISSUE: Whet her or not t he awar d of der ivedf rom t hebusi nesswoul dbeequal l
y
exempl ary damages i s appl icablei nt his divi
dedamongt hem andt hatr espondent
case. woul d be i n char ge of pr omot i
on and
HELD:The Supr eme Cour thas r uled in mar keting in Hong Kong,whi l
e Ramon
People v s. Pal ing t hat an awar d of woul dt ake char ge oft he oper at
ions of
exempl ary damages i s j ustif
ied i f an busi nessi nt hePhi l
ippinesandshewoul d
aggravatingci rcumst ance,ei therqual if
ying bef i
nanci ngt hebusi ness.
orgener ic,accompani est hecr ime.I nt he The busi ness has notoper ated y etas
caseatbar ,t
hequal ifyi
ngci r
cumst anceof pet it
ionerwasst illr ai
sing theamountof
evidentpr emedi tati
onwasdul yal legedi n US$100, 000.00 as capi t
alf ort he actual
theInformat i
onandpr ov eddur ingt het r
ial
. operat i
on.Whenpet i
tioneralreadyhadt he
Therefore,inlinewi thcur rentjurisprudence, money ,shehandedt hesamet or espondent
theSupr emeCour treinstatet het ri
alcourt'
s Salvador whi ch was wi t
nessed by her
awar d oft he amountofP30, 000.00 as di sabled hal f-
brother Enr i
co B. Tan.
exempl arydamagest ohei rsofthev ictim Howev er,t he pr oposed busi ness nev er
operatedasr espondentonl
yst ay
edinHong
Kong f or three days.When she asked
respondent about t he money and t he
business,thelatt
ertoldherthatthemoney
Cr
ist
inaCast
il
lovPhi
l
li
pSal
vador
wasdeposi t
ed in a bank.Howev er
,upon
FACTS:Ther espondentPhi l
li
pR.Sal vador furt
herquer y,r
espondentconfessedthathe
waschar gedwi thestafaunderAr ti
cle315, used t he money t o pay f or hi
s other
paragraph2( a)oftheRev isedPenalCode. obli
gations.Sincethen,theUS$100,000.00
TheRegi onalTr i
alCour tandt heCour tof wasnotr eturnedatall
.
Appealsacquittedhim oft hesamebutt he
ISSUE:Mustt he award ofdamaged be
civ
il aspect of t he case r emained.
retai
ned despi
te the acquit
tal of t
he
RespondentSal vadort henf i
l
ed apet it
ion
accusedi
nthecri
minalcase?
forr evi
ew on Cer ti
oraritot he Supreme
Court. RULING:Theawar dofdamagesmustbe
remov ed.Ourl aw recognizest wokindsof
Petit
ioner Cr i
sti
na B. Cast il
lo is a
acquittal
,wi t
hdi f
ferentef f
ectsont heci vi
l
businesswoman engaged i nr ealest ate
l
iabil
it
yoft heaccused.Fi rstisanacqui t
tal
business,educationali
nstit
ution,boutique,
ont hegr oundt hatt heaccusedi snott he
andt radi
ngbusiness.Shewast henent i
ced
authoroft heact oromi ssi
oncompl ai
nedof .
by Sal vador and hi s br other, Ramon
Thisinstancecl osest hedoort ocivi
ll
iabil
i
ty,
Salvadortoengagei nfr
eightandr emit
tance
foraper sonwhohasbeenf oundtobenot
business.
the per pet r
atorofany actoromi ssi
on
Aspet i
ti
onerhaddeeplyf al
leni nlovewi th cannotandcannev erbehel dliabl
eforsuch
respondentSalvadorandsi nceshet r
ust ed actoromi ssion.Ther ebeingnodel i
ct,civi
l
himv erymuchasheev enact edasaf ather l
iabil
it
yexdel ictoi
soutoft hequest i
on,and
to herchi l
dren when herannul mentwas t he civ i
lact ion,i f any ,whi ch may be
i
nst it
ut edmustbebasedongr oundsot her expl
ainedt
heconceptofpr
eponder
anceof
thant hedel ictcompl ainedof .Thisist he evi
denceasfol
l
ows:
situati
on cont emplated in RuleI IIoft he
Rul esofCour t.Thesecondi nstanceisan x x x Pr eponderance ofev i
dence ist he
acqui t
t albasedonr easonabledoubtont he wei ght,credit
,andv alueoft heaggr egate
guiltoft heaccused.I nthiscase,evenifthe evidence on ei ther side and is usual l
y
guilt of t he accused has not been consi deredtobesy nonymouswi ththeterm
sat i
sfactoril
yest abli
shed,hei snotexempt "greaterwei ghtoft heev i
dence"or" gr
eater
from ci villi
abi l
i
tywhi chmaybepr ovedby wei ght of t he cr edibl
e ev idence."
preponder anceofev idenceonl y.Thisisthe Preponder ance ofev i
dence is a phr ase
situati
oncont emplatedi nArti
cle29oft he whi ch,inthelastanalysis,meansprobabi l
it
y
Civ i
l Code, wher e t he civi
l action for oft het ruth.Itisev idencewhi chismor e
damagesi s"forthesameactoromi ssi
on. conv inci
ngt ot hecour taswor thyofbel i
ef
than t hatwhi ch is of f
ered i
n opposition
Ar eadingoft heCA decisi
onwoul dshow thereto.
thatrespondentwasacqui t
tedbecausethe
prosecuti
onfailedtoprov
ehi sguil
tbeyond However
,int
hiscase,nosuchci
vi
ll
iabi
li
tyi
s
reasonabledoubt.Sai
dtheCA: pr
ovedevenbypreponder
anceofevi
dence.

The ev idence f ort he pr osecut ion bei ng In discredi t

ing pet i
tioner ’
s al legation t hat
i
nsuf fici
ent t o pr ove bey ond r easonabl e shegav er espondentUS$100, 000. 00i nMay
doubtt hatt hecr i
measchar gedhadbeen 2002, theCAf oundt hat :(1)pet it
ionerf ai l
ed
commi t
ted by appel lant, t he gener al to show how she was abl et or aise t he
presumpt ion," thataper soni si nnocentof moneyi nsuchashor tper iodoft imeand
thecr imeorwr ong,standsi nhisf avor.The evengav econf l
i
ctingv er si
onsont hesour ce
prosecut ion f ailed t o prov et hatal lt he ofthesame;( 2)pet i
tionerf ail
edt or equire
element sofest afaar epr esenti nt hiscase respondentt osi gnar ecei ptsoshecoul d
as woul d ov ercome t he pr esumpt i
on of havear ecor doft het ransact i
onandof fered
i
nnocencei nf av orofappel lant.Fori nf act, no plausi bler eason whyt he moneywas
the pr osecut ion's pr i
mar ywi t
ness her sel f all
egedl y hand- carri
ed t o Hong Kong;( 3)
could not ev en est abl i
sh cl ear l
y and peti
ti
oner ’
scl aim oft rustasr easonf ornot
precisely how appel l
ant commi tted t he requi
r i
ngr espondentt osi gnar ecei ptwas
all
egedf raud.Shef ail
edt oconv i
nceust hat i
nconsi stentwi tht he wayshe conduct ed
she was deceived t
hrough herpr evioust r
ansact ionswi thhi m;and( 4)
mi srepresent ationsand/ orinsidiousact i
ons, peti
ti
oner ’
sbehav ioraf tert heal legedf raud
i
nv enturing i ntoar emi t
t ance busi ness. perpetrated agai nstherwas i nconsi stent
Qui t
e t he cont r
ary, t he obt aining witht he act uati
on ofsomeone who had
circumst ance i nt his case i ndi catet he beenswi ndled.
weaknessofhersubmi ssions. Thepeti
ti
onf
ort
heawar
dofdamagesi
s
Thus,si nce the acqui tt
alis based on deni
ed.
reasonabledoubt,
r espondentisnotexempt
from civi
lli
abi
li
tywhi chmaybepr ovedby
preponderanceofev idenceonly.I
nEncinas Peopl
ev.Bay
otas
v.NationalBookstore,Inc.
,thehighercour
t
FACTS: Rogel io Bay otas, accused and Deathoft heaccusedpendi ngappealofhis
chargedwi thRape, diedonFebr uar y4,1992 convict
ionextinguisheshiscri
minall
iabi
l
ity
due t o car dio r espi r
atory ar rest. The as wellas the ci vi
lliabi
l
itybased sol
ely
Soli
citorGener althensubmi tt
edacomment ther
eon. Ther efore, Bay ot
as’
s deat h
stati
ngt hatthedeat hoft heaccuseddoes exti
nguished hiscr i
minaland ci
vill
iabi
l
ity
not excuse hi m f rom hi s ci v
ill i
abilit
y basedsolelyont heactcomplai
nedof.
(support edbyt heSupr emeCour t’
sdeci sion
i
n Peopl ev s Senday diego).On t he other
hand,t hecounseloft heaccusedcl aimed Vi
l
legasv
.CA
thati nt he Supr eme Cour t’s decisi
on i n
Peopl e v s Cast i
ll
o, ci v
il liabil
it
y i s FACTS: Thiscaseor igi
natedf r
om al ibelsui
t
exti
ngui shedi faccusedshoul ddi ebef ore fi
led by t hen Assembl yman Ant onio V.
thefinal judgementi sr endered. Raquizaagai nstthenMani laMay orAntonio
J.Vill
egas,whoal legedlypubliclyimput ed
ISSUE:
Whetherornott he deat
h ofthe to hi
m act sconst itut
ing viol
ationsoft he
accusedpendingappealofhisconvi
cti
on Anti-
GraftandCor r
uptPracticesAct .Hedi d
exti
ngui
shhisciv
ill
i
abi
li
ty. thisonsev eraloccasionsi nAugust1968
RULI NG:The Cour tdeci ded on t his case xxx
throughst ati
ngt hecasesofCast il
lo and AnI nformationforl i
belwasf i
ledagai nst
Senday diego.Int heCast i
ll
ocase,t heCour t Vill
egaswhodeni edt hecharge.Afterlosing
saidt hatci vi
lliabili
tyi sextingui
shedonl y i
nt he1971el ecti
ons,Vill
egasl eftfort he
whendeat hoft heaccusedoccur redbef ore United St ates where he stayed unt i
lhi s
thef i
naljudgement .JudgeKapunanf urt
her death. Nev ert
hel
ess,t r
ialpr oceeded on
stated that ci villiabili
tyi s exti
ngui shed absent ia.Twomont hsaf t
erthepr osecution
becauset herewi llbe“ nopar t
ydef endant” restedi tscase,thecour tissuedanor der
i
nt hecase.Ther ewi l
lbenoci vi
lliabil
it
yif dismi ssingthecriminalaspectoft hecase
cri
mi nalliabil
it
ydoesnotexi st.Further,the butr eservi
ng therighttor esolveitsci vi
l
Cour tstated“ itis,t hus,ev i
dentt hat…t he aspect .
ruleestabl i
shedwast hatthesur v
ivaloft he
civi
lliabi
litydependsonwhet hert hesame Subsequentlythe Courtawarded Raqui
za
can be pr edi
cat ed on t he sour ces of actual
,mor al
,exemplarydamagesandcost
obligati
onsot hert handel i
ct. ofsui t
.On appeal ,the CA aff
ir
med but
reduced the amountofdamages.Hence,
IntheSenday diegocase,t heCour tissued thi
spetiti
on.
Resolut
ionofJul y8,1977wher eitst at
es
thatcivi
lliabili
tywi llonlysur v
ivei fdeath I
SSUE:(r
elat
edt ot hesubjectmatter
)di d
cameaf terthef inaljudgementoft heCFIof t
he death of the accused beforef i
nal
Pangasinan.Howev er,Art
icle30oft heCi v
il j
udgmentext
inguishhi
scivi
lli
abi
l
ity?
Codecoul dnotpossi bl
ylendsuppor ttothe
HELD:NO(takenoteofArt
icle33oftheCi
vi
l
rul
ing in Senday di
ego. Ci v
ill i
abili
ty ex
Code.Raquiza’
srightt
or ecoverdamages
deli
ctoisext inguishedbyt hedeat hoft he
ar
osefrom t
hisart
icl
enotfrom del
i
ct)
accusedwhi lehi sconv i
ctioni sonappeal .
TheCour tal sogav easummar yonwhi ch Fort
unatel
y,t
hisCour
thasalr
eadysett
led
casesshoul dci v i
lliabi
li
tybeext inguished, thi
sissuewit
hthepr
omul
gat
ionofthecase
towit:
ofPeopl
ev.Bayot
as(G.
R.No.102007)on l
iabi
li
tyis deemed i
nter
rupted during t
he
Sept
ember2,
1994,4v
iz.
: pendencyofthecr
imi
nalcase(Art.1155)

1Deat hoft heaccusedpendi ngappealof Thesour ceofVi ll

egas’ci villi
abi li
tyi nthe
his conv i
cti
on ext inguishes hi s criminal presentcasei sthef el oni ousactofl ibelhe
l
iabil
ityaswel last heci vi
lli
abili
tyxxx all
egedlycommi t
ted.Yet , thisactcoul dalso
bedeemedaquasi -del ictwi t
hint hepur view
2 Cor ollari
lyt he cl ai
m f or civilliabi
li
ty ofAr ti
cle339i nr elat i
ont oAr ticle1157of
survivesnot withstandingt hedeat hof( t
he) theCi v
ilCode.
accused, i f t he same may al so be
predicat edonasour ceofobl igati
onot her The Bay otas r uli
ng,howev er,makes t he
thandel ict.Articl
e1157oft heCi vilCode enf orcementofadeceasedaccused’ sci v
il
enumer at es t hese ot her sour ces of l iabil
itydependentont wof actors,namel y,
obli
gat ionf rom whi cht heci villi
abil
it
ymay t hatitbepur suedbyf il
ingasepar at eci v
il
ari
se as a r esult of t he same act or act i
on and t hati tbe made subj ectt o
omissi on: Section1,Rul e111oft he1985Rul eson
CriminalProcedur e,asamended.
a)Law
Obv i
ously,inthecaseatbar ,t
heci vilact i
on
b)Cont racts was deemed i nsti
tut ed wi tht he cr iminal.
c)Quasi -contr
act s Therewasnowai veroft heci v
ilact ionand
nor eservati
onoft her ightt oinst itut ethe
d)xxxxxxxxx same,norwas i ti nst i
tut ed pr iort ot he
cri
mi nalacti
on.Whatt heni sther ecour seof
e)Quasi -deli
cts
thepr i
vateoffendedpar t
yi nacr imi nalcase
3.Wher et he ci vi
ll iabil
ity surviv
es,as sucha st hi
sw hichmu stb ed is mi ssedi n
explainedi nNumber2abov e,anact i
onf or accordancewi t
ht heBay otasdoct rine.
recoveryther eformaybepur suedbutonl y
Now,wheretheci
vi
lact
ionwasi
mpl
i
edl
y
bywayoff il
ingasepar atecivi
lacti
onand
i
nst
it
utedwi
thit
?
subjecttoSect ion1,Rul e111oft he1985
RulesonCr iminalPr ocedureasamended.8 Theansweri
sli
kewi
sepr
ovi
dedi
nBay
atas,
Thissepar ateci vilacti
onmaybeenf orced thus:
eit
heragai nstt he execut or
/administr
ator
o(f)theestateoft heaccused, dependingon Assumi ng t hat f or l ack of expr ess
the source ofobl i
gati
on upon whi ch t he reservat
ion, Bel amala’s civ il civi
l f or
samei sbasedasexpl ainedabov e. damageswast o beconsi deredi nsti
tuted
togetherwitht hecri
mi nalactionst i
l
l,since
4.Finall
y,thepr i
vateoffendedpar t
yneed bothpr oceedingswer et erminatedwi thout
notfearaf or fei
tureofhisr i
ghtt of i
lethis fi
nalsadj udi
cat i
on,theci vi
lact ion oft he
separate civilact i
on by pr escri
ption,i n offendedpar t
yunderAr ti
cle33mayy etbe
caseswher edur i
ngt heprosecutionoft he enforcedsepar at
ely
cri
minalact ionandpr i
ort oitsext incti
on,
the pr i
vate of fended par ty i nsti
t ed Ther
ut esol
uti
onoft heci
vilaspectofthecase
toget
hert herewitht heci
v i
laction.Insuch af t
ert he dismissaloft he main crimi
nal
case,thest atuteofl i
mit
ationsont heci vl act
i i
on by the t r
ialcourtwas t echni
call
y
defecti
ve.Therewasnopr opersubsti
tut
ion
ofpar t
ies,ascor r
ect l
ypoint
edoutbyt he
Heirsandr epeat
edlyputi nissuebyAtty
.
Quisumbi ng. What shoul d hav e been
fol
lowed by t he court a quo was the
procedurel ai
ddowni ntheRulesofCourt,
specif
icall
y, Section 17, Rul e 3, in
connectionwi t
hSection1,Rul
e87.

WHEREFORE,thepeti
ti
oni
nG.R.No.82562
i
sGRANTED and t hepet
it
ion i
n G.
R.No.
82592i
sDENIED