Corpus v Paje | 1969 | Capistrano, J.

| | by Jasper

FACTS:
● Dec. 23, 1956 Collision bet Victory Liner bus, driven
by res. Felardo Paje and a Jeep driven Clemente
Marcia. Clemente died.
● Information FILED against Paje: Homicde and
double serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence. Heirs of Clemente (Pet.) reserved their
right to independent civil action for damages.
● CFI Pampanga held Paje to be Guilty. He appealed
with the CA.
● Nov. 21, 1961While on appeal in the CA, Pet. FILED:
with CFI Rizal, a separate civil action for damages
based upon the criminal act of reckless imprudence
against Paje and Victory Liner.
● However CA: reversed CFI Pampanga and acquitted
Paje.
● Defendants therefore filed in the civil action a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was
barred by the acquittal by the CA. The motion was
denied.
● CFI: still dismissed but based on the prescription of
the action of QD. Appealed directly to CA.
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. WON the civil case should be dismissed. YES
a. The acquittal was a bar to the civil action
for damages that was based on the
criminal negligence (RPC 100 action).
b. Art 33 is not applicable since Crim
Negligence, Reckless Imprudence, is not
one of the three crimes mentioned in Art
33. There is no independent civil action for
damages that may be instituted in
connection with the said offense.
c. Art 33 only mentions Defamation, Fraud
(estafa), and physical injuries (includes
homicide ).
d. BUT the charge against Paje was reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. NOT for
Homicide and physical injuries.
e. People v. Buan - Ciminal Negligence under
RPC 365 penalizes the negligent act not the
results thereof.
f. Rules of Court 111 §3 the extinction of the
criminal action by acquittal of the
defendant on the ground that the criminal
act charged against him did not exist,
necessarily extinguished also the civil
action for damages based upon the same
act.
g. Assuming arguendo that civil case for
damages was based on QD it has already
prescribed. Since QD must be instituted
within 4yrs, and Dec 1956- Nov 1961 is
more than 4yrs.
RULING: CONSIDERED order AFFIRMED. Case dismissed