Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Padilla v CA (Torts) 1.

where the civil liability which is included in the criminal action is that arising from
and as a consequence of the criminal act, and the defendant was acquitted in the
criminal case, (no civil liability arising from the criminal case), no civil liability arising
from the criminal charge could be imposed upon him
PADILLA v CA G.R. No. L-39999 May 31, 1984 ROY PADILLA, FILOMENO 2. liability of the defendant for the return of the amount received by him may not be
GALDONES, ISMAEL GONZALGO and JOSE FARLEY BEDENIA, petitioners, enforced in the criminal case but must be raised in a separate civil action for the
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent. recovery of the said amount

1. The information states that on February 8, 1964 at around 9AM, the accused ISSUE: whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in requiring
prevented Antonio Vergara and his family to close their stall located at the Public the petitioners to pay civil indemnity to the complainants after acquitting them from
Market, Building No. 3, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, and by subsequently the criminal charge.
forcibly opening the door of said stall and thereafter brutally demolishing and RULING:
destroying said stall and the furnitures therein by axes and other massive No, the Court of Appeals is correct.
instruments, and carrying away the goods, wares and merchandise 1. A separate civil action is not required. To require a separate civil action simply
because the accused was acquitted would mean needless clogging of court dockets
Contentions: and unnecessary duplication of litigation with all its attendant loss of time, effort, and
money on the part of all concerned.
Vergara Family Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states the fundamental proposition
1. accused took advantage of their public positions: Roy Padilla, being the incumbent that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability
municipal mayor, and the rest of the accused being policemen, except Ricardo arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with it. The exceptions are
Celestino who is a civilian, all of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, and that it was when the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to
committed with evident premeditation. institute it separately.
Civil liability which is also extinguished upon acquittal of the accused is the civil
liability arising from the act as a crime.
Roy Padilla, et al The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only
1. finding of grave coercion was not supported by the evidence when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil might arise did not
2. the town mayor had the power to order the clearance of market premises and the exist. Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is
removal of the complainants' stall because the municipality had enacted municipal based on reasonable doubt.
ordinances pursuant to which the market stall was a nuisance per se Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides:
3. violation of the very directive of the petitioner Mayor which gave the stall owners Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
seventy two (72) hours to vacate the market premise 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. That the same punishable act or omission can
create two kinds of civil liabilities against the accused and, where provided by
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: law, his employer. 'There is the civil liability arising from the act as a crime and
(1) Trial court: conviction. Roy Padilla, Filomeno Galdonez, Ismael Gonzalgo and the liability arising from the same act as a quasi-delict. Either one of these two
Jose Parley Bedenia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave coercion, types of civil liability may be enforced against the accused, However, the
and hereby imposes upon them to suffer an imprisonment of FIVE (5) months and offended party cannot recover damages under both types of liability.
One (1) day; to pay a fine of P500.00 each; to pay actual and compensatory damages Article 29 of the Civil Code, earlier cited, that "when the accused in a criminal
in the amount of P10,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
another P10,000.00 for exemplary damages, jointly and severally, and all the reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
accessory penalties provided for by law; and to pay the proportionate costs of this instituted."
proceedings. What Article 29 merely emphasizes that a civil action for damages is not precluded by
(2) Court of Appeals: acquittal but ordered them to pay solidarily the amount of 9,000. an acquittal for the same criminal act or omission.
The petitioners were acquitted because these acts were denominated coercion when The Civil Code provision does not state that the remedy can be availed of only in a
they properly constituted some petitioners were acquitted because these acts were separate civil action. A separate civil case may be filed but there is no statement that
denominated coercion when they properly constituted some other offense such as such separate filing is the only and exclusive permissible mode of recovering
threat or malicious mischief damages. Considering moreover the delays suffered by the case in the trial,
appellate, and review stages, it would be unjust to the complainants in this case to
Roy Padilla et al for petition for review on certiorari - grounds require at this time a separate civil action to be filed.