Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 111 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL CASES

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions . (a) When a criminal ac i!n i" in" i u e#$ he ci%il ac i!n &!r he rec!%er' !& ci%il lia(ili ' ari"in) &r!m he !&&en"e char)e# "hall (e #eeme# in" i u e# *i h he criminal ac i!n unle"" he !&&en#e# +ar ' *ai%e" he ci%il ac i!n$ re"er%e" he ri)h ! in" i u e i "e+ara el' !r in" i u e" he ci%il ac i!n +ri!r ! he criminal ac i!n. The re"er%a i!n !& he ri)h ! in" i u e "e+ara el' he ci%il ac i!n "hall (e ma#e (e&!re he +r!"ecu i!n " ar " +re"en in) i " e%i#ence an# un#er circum" ance" a&&!r#in) he !&&en#e# +ar ' a rea"!na(le !++!r uni ' ! ma,e "uch re"er%a i!n. When he !&&en#e# +ar ' "ee," ! en&!rce ci%il lia(ili ' a)ain" he accu"e# (' *a' !& m!ral$ n!minal$ em+era e$ !r e-em+lar' #ama)e" *i h!u "+eci&'in) he am!un here!& in he c!m+lain !r in&!rma i!n$ he &ilin) &ee" here&!re "hall c!n" i u e a &ir" lien !n he .u#)men a*ar#in) "uch #ama)e". Where he am!un !& #ama)e"$ ! her han ac ual$ i" "+eci&ie# in he c!m+lain !r in&!rma i!n$ he c!rre"+!n#in) &ilin) &ee" "hall (e +ai# (' he !&&en#e# +ar ' u+!n he &ilin) here!& in c!ur . E-ce+ a" ! her*i"e +r!%i#e# in he"e Rule"$ n! &ilin) &ee" "hall (e re/uire# &!r ac ual #ama)e". N! c!un erclaim$ cr!""0claim !r hir#0+ar ' c!m+lain ma' (e &ile# (' he accu"e# in he criminal ca"e$ (u an' cau"e !& ac i!n *hich c!ul# ha%e (een he "u(.ec here!& ma' (e li i)a e# in a "e+ara e ci%il ac i!n. (1a) (() The criminal ac i!n &!r %i!la i!n !& 1a a" Pam(an"a 1l). 22 "hall (e #eeme# ! inclu#e he c!rre"+!n#in) ci%il ac i!n. N! re"er%a i!n ! &ile "uch ci%il ac i!n "e+ara el' "hall (e all!*e#. U+!n &ilin) !& he a&!re"ai# .!in criminal an# ci%il ac i!n"$ he !&&en#e# +ar ' "hall +a' in &ull he &ilin) &ee" (a"e# !n he am!un !& he chec, in%!l%e#$ *hich "hall (e c!n"i#ere# a" he ac ual #ama)e" claime#. Where he c!m+lain !r in&!rma i!n al"! "ee," ! rec!%er li/ui#a e#$ m!ral$ n!minal$ em+era e !r e-em+lar' #ama)e"$ he !&&en#e# +ar ' "hall +a' a##i i!nal &ilin) &ee" (a"e# !n he am!un " alle)e# herein. I& he am!un " are n! "! alle)e# (u an' !& he"e #ama)e" are "u("e/uen l' a*ar#e# (' he c!ur $ he &ilin) &ee" (a"e# !n he am!un a*ar#e# "hall c!n" i u e a &ir" lien !n he .u#)men . Where he ci%il ac i!n ha" (een &ile# "e+ara el' an# rial here!& ha" n! 'e c!mmence#$ i ma' (e c!n"!li#a e# *i h he criminal ac i!n u+!n a++lica i!n *i h he c!ur r'in) he la er ca"e. I& he a++lica i!n i" )ran e#$ he rial !& (! h ac i!n" "hall +r!cee# in acc!r#ance *i h "ec i!n 2 !& hi" Rule )!%ernin) c!n"!li#a i!n !& he ci%il an# criminal ac i!n". (cir. 34054) We will now go to Rule 111. This rule has been subjected to many amendments although the amendments may not be very radical. As a matter of fact, they only incorporate jurisprudence or principles laid down in decided cases. The main principle is: when a criminal action is filed, the civil action of the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action. What is the basis for that principle The basis is Article 1!! of the R"#, $%very person criminally liable is also civilly liable.& When you say deemed instituted, it does not only cover the civil liability of the accused himself but also the probable subsidiary civil liability of the employer under Article 1!'. (ou already )new of that rule that when an employee*accused is adjudged criminally liable and is insolvent, the employer of that accused who committed the crime while he was in the discharge of his duties will be the one to answer the civil liability. That is why the +# said that whether he li)es it or not, he is covered. ,t is advisable for the employer in that situation to help his employee in the criminal case because he will also be prejudiced if his employee will be convicted. To borrow the language of the +#, whether he li)es it or not, he is a forced intervenor in the criminal case filed against his employee. Q: When is a civil action arising from a crime -.T deemed instituted with the criminal action A: The civil action is -.T deemed instituted with the criminal action: 44

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
1. 0. '. 1. 8.

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

when the offended party has waived the civil aspect of the case/ when the offended party has reserved his right to file a separate civil action/ or when the civil action was filed or instituted ahead of the criminal action. when the crime is one to which no civil liability attaches. 2"eople vs. 3aceda, 4' "hil. 5467 when the civil action was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal cases was duly informed. 2(a)ult "hils. vs. #A, 16! +#RA '847/

According to the second paragraph, the reservation must be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party reasonable opportunity. 9efore the trial, )ailangan mag*reserve na siya. .therwise the court will consider the civil aspect deemed instituted. 6A7ULT P8ILS. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 159 SCRA :34 (1559) FACTS: ,n a criminal case, the offended party did not ma)e a reservation but there is still no trial. :owever, without ma)ing a reservation, the offended party filed a civil action. After such filing, the offended party told the court trying the criminal case, that he has already filed a separate civil case so that the court will not include anymore the civil aspect. ISSUE: ,s there a proper filing of the civil action without ma)ing a reservation action filed ahead of the criminal case Was the civil

8EL;: -.. :owever, there is no ;uestion that after filing the civil case he told the court that he already filed a separate civil action and that is even a better reservation. ,n effect, there was an automatic reservation although normally, reservation is done before the filing of the criminal case. ,to naman, filing before he informed the court. Q: :as the offended party the right to claim and prove damages in the criminal action where the complaint or information is silent as to such claim A: %very person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Therefore, even if the complaint or information is silent as to damages, the offended party has the right to claim and prove them in the criminal case, unless a waiver or a reservation of the civil action is made. 2"eople vs. Rodrigue<, =uly 06, 1686/ Roa vs. dela #ru<, >eb. 1', 165!7 +o it is possible for the information to recite the claim for civil liability or hindi na )ailangan. The only difference is: if the information mentions the claim of the civil liability, the offended party is re;uired to pay the doc)et fee provided the doc)et fee is only for any claims for moral, exemplary and nominal damages. There is no doc)et fee for actual damages. Q: +uppose there was no mention of any claim for moral or e?emplary damages, can he still prove them during the trial (%+. 9ut he did not pay doc)et fee A: -ever mind, once it is awarded, there is now a lien in the judgment for the payment of the doc)et fee. +o there is difference in the rule in doc)et fee in civil and criminal cases. Remember the case of Sun Insurance in civil procedure ,f the doc)et fee was not mentioned in the complaint in the civil case they are deemed waived. (ou must pay the doc)et fee at the start of the case though if it is not mentioned, you are given the chance to complete the payment or amend the complaint within reasonable time. ,n criminal cases, even if there is no mention of damages in the information, you can still prove and claim them as long as there is no waiver or reservation. +o in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or e?emplary damages is mentioned in the information, you must pay the doc)et fee upon filing of the information. 9ut whether alleged in the information or not, you can claim for actual damages and there is no doc)et fee for actual damages except in cases under 9" 00. That is the e?ception which is now embodied in +ection 1 paragraph @bA which was ta)e from +# circular 84*64 B there is no payment of doc)et fee for actual damages e?cept in criminal cases for violation of 9" 00 because paragraph @bA says: 45

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

U+!n &ilin) !& he a&!re"ai# .!in criminal an# ci%il ac i!n"$ he !&&en#e# +ar ' "hall +a' in &ull he &ilin) &ee" (a"e# !n he am!un !& he chec, in%!l%e#$ *hich "hall (e c!n"i#ere# a" he ac ual #ama)e" claime#. -ow, ta)e note of the ruling in the case of Cabaero vs. Cantos mentioned in civil procedure which is now incorporated in the last paragraph of +ection 1, paragraph @aA: N! c!un erclaim$ cr!""0claim !r hir#0+ar ' c!m+lain ma' (e &ile# (' he accu"e# in he criminal ca"e$ (u an' cau"e !& ac i!n *hich c!ul# ha%e (een he "u(.ec here!& ma' (e li i)a e# in a "e+ara e ci%il ac i!n. ThatCs the Cabaero case which reversed Javier vs. IAC, 2141 +#RA '457 and Shaffer vs. R C, 2154 +#RA '457. SEC. 2. !hen separate civil action is suspended . A& er he criminal ac i!n ha" (een c!mmence#$ he "e+ara e ci%il ac i!n ari"in) here&r!m cann! (e in" i u e# un il &inal .u#)men ha" (een en ere# in he criminal ac i!n. I& he criminal ac i!n i" &ile# a& er he "ai# ci%il ac i!n ha" alrea#' (een in" i u e#$ he la er "hall (e "u"+en#e# in *ha e%er " a e i ma' (e &!un# (e&!re .u#)men !n he meri ". The "u"+en"i!n "hall la" un il &inal .u#)men i" ren#ere# in he criminal ac i!n. Ne%er hele""$ (e&!re .u#)men !n he meri " ren#ere# in he ci%il ac i!n$ he "ame ma'$ u+!n m! i!n !& he !&&en#e# +ar '$ (e c!n"!li#a e# *i h he criminal ac i!n in he c!ur r'in) he criminal ac i!n. In ca"e !& c!n"!li#a i!n$ he e%i#ence alrea#' a##uce# in he ci%il ac i!n "hall (e #eeme# au !ma icall' re+r!#uce# in he criminal ac i!n *i h!u +re.u#ice ! he ri)h !& he +r!"ecu i!n ! cr!""0e-amine he *i ne"" +re"en e# (' he !&&en#e# +ar ' in he criminal ca"e an# !& he +ar ie" ! +re"en a##i i!nal e%i#ence. The c!n"!li#a e# criminal an# ci%il ac i!n" "hall (e rie# an# #eci#e# .!in l'. ;urin) he +en#enc' !& he criminal ac i!n$ he runnin) +eri!# !& +re"cri+ i!n !& he ci%il ac i!n *hich cann! (e in" i u e# "e+ara el' !r *h!"e +r!cee#in) ha" (een "u"+en#e# "hall (e !lle#. (n) The e- inc i!n !& he +enal ac i!n #!e" n! carr' *i h i e- inc i!n !& he ci%il ac i!n. 8!*e%er$ he ci%il ac i!n (a"e# !n #elic "hall (e #eeme# e- in)ui"he# i& here i" a &in#in) in a &inal .u#)men in he criminal ac i!n ha he ac !r !mi""i!n &r!m *hich he ci%il lia(ili ' ma' ari"e #i# n! e-i" . (2a) DetCs go to +ection 0. +uppose the offended party made a reservation to institute a civil action and a criminal case is filed, he cannot file the civil action B thatCs the rule. :e must wait for the outcome of the criminal case. The criminal case enjoys priority. The reason here is that there might be an embarrassment in the administration of justice. (ou allowed the filing of the civil and criminal cases together. +ame evidence, same incident. ,n the criminal case, the accused was convicted but in the civil case the claim for damages was dismissed because the offended party failed to proved his claim by preponderance of evidence. That is something absurdE +o the best thing is unahin muna ang criminal case because anyway if there is an ac;uittal in the criminal case, you can still recover in the civil case because it is only a preponderance of evidence, or the accused may be ac;uitted by reason of an e?empting circumstance and yet it does not e?empt him from civil liability in another civil action. Ta)e note that what is suspended is the civil action arising from the criminal act. 2opening paragraph of +ection 0/ Article 1184, -ew #ivil #ode7 Q: What happens if na*una na*file yung civil action A: According to +ection 0, from the moment the criminal case is filed, the trial of the civil case is suspended to wait for the outcome of the criminal case. 46

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

Q: ,s this prejudicial to the offended party A: There is a way out according to +ection 0. The first thing for him to do is to file a petition to consolidate the trial of the criminal and civil case for them to be tried together and the evidence already presented in the civil case is deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal case. This is what you call the consolidation of the civil and criminal action under +ection 0. Q: ,s this consolidation mandatory A: -.. ,t is permissive. Actually, the offended party is the one to initiate this because if not, then he has to wait for the criminal case to be terminated before he can file the civil case. Q: What are the instances when the offended party is not allowed to ma)e a reservation therefore re;uires a mandatory consolidation A: The following are the instances: 1. Fiolations of 9" 00. 2"aragraph b, +ection 1, Rule 1117/ 0. Dibel B under Article '5!, R"#/ '. 3andatory consolidation under the +andiganbayan law. >or e?ample, a criminal case is supposed to be tried by the +9 and then you file a civil case before the ordinary courts. What will happen now to the civil case The law says there must be a mandatory consolidation of both cases in the +9. Q: What happens if the filing of the civil action will have to wait for the outcome of the criminal case, ba)a nag*prescribed na yung civil action A: Read 'rd paragraph of +ection 0: ;urin) he +en#enc' !& he criminal ac i!n$ he runnin) +eri!# !& +re"cri+ i!n !& he ci%il ac i!n *hich cann! (e in" i u e# "e+ara el' !r *h!"e +r!cee#in) ha" (een "u"+en#e# "hall (e !lle#. (n) AyunE The running of the prescriptive period shall be suspended. This was the doctrine in the case of "eople vs. #ayotas. There is something new in the 0nd paragraph about consolidation. When the civil case is filed ahead, the filing of the criminal case will suspend the civil unless there is a petition to consolidate in which case the evidence presented in the civil case is automatically considered reproduced in the criminal case. -ow read this part, third paragraph of +ection 0: <- - - In ca"e !& c!n"!li#a i!n$ he e%i#ence alrea#' a##uce# in he ci%il ac i!n "hall (e #eeme# au !ma icall' re+r!#uce# in he criminal ac i!n without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case an# !& he +ar ie" ! +re"en a##i i!nal e%i#ence. - - -= What is new here is the phrase $%ithout pre&udice to the ri'ht of the prosecution to cross(examine the %itnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case)* , was wondering, there is something wrong here. , believe there is a typographical error here. Gi ba the witnesses of the offended party in the civil case are also the witnesses of the prosecution in the criminal case , was wondering why will the fiscal cross*e?amine his witnesses , thin) the phrase really means $the %itnesses presented by the accused*. DetCs go to some decided cases. CA>OS vs. PERALTA 113 SCRA ?@: FACTS: The case of Ca+os was decided before the 16H8 Rules. :ere, there was reservation. There were two 207 cases arising out of the same incident. At that time, there was still no specific rule on consolidation. =udge "eralta ordered the consolidation of the criminal and civil cases and that was ;uestioned.

47

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

ISSUE: Was the consolidation proper ,f so, how do you reconcile these cases because the degree of proof in the criminal case is not the same in the civil case 8EL;: The consolidation was proper under Rule '1 because there is a common ;uestion of fact and law. They can be consolidated but for purposes of decision, the court will now apply two 207 different criteria: "roof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case and preponderance of evidence in the civil case. +o there is no incompatibility. -ow, here comes the 16H8 Rules on consolidation and one of the first cases which reached the +# involving the new Rules was the case of ,a'uiat. NAAUIAT vs. IAC 1B@ SCRA 393 FACTS: -aguiat filed a case against a subdivision development corporation where he bought a lot in installment basis. Inder the subdivision law )apag bayad na, you issue the title. 9ut according to -aguiat, bayad na pero hindi binigay yung title. +o he filed a case for specific performance with damages against the subdivision and he also filed a criminal case against the president of the corporation for failure to deliver to him the title of the land under "G 684. -ow, he filed a motion to consolidate under Rule 111. ISSUE: ,s the motion to consolidate proper 8EL;: -.. They cannot be consolidated under Rule 111 because what can be consolidated is a criminal case together with a civil case for damages from the crime committed. ,n other words, damages $ex delicto.& 9ut here, the criminal case was filed against the officers of the corporation for damages and a civil case for specific performance was also filed against the same officers. That civil case arose from a contract, i.e. $ex contractu.& @+o if the civil case arose from a contract, it cannot be consolidated with the criminal case under Rule 111.A 9ut because it cannot be denied that it would be better if we try them together because we are tal)ing of the same incident B failure to deliver the title B why not consolidate the two cases under Rule '1, citing the case of Ca+os vs. "eralta. ,n that case, the only ground was there was a common ;uestion of fact and law so they should be consolidated under Rule '1 and -.T Rule 111. The e- inc i!n !& he +enal ac i!n #!e" n! carr' *i h i e- inc i!n !& he ci%il ac i!n. 8!*e%er$ he ci%il ac i!n (a"e# !n #elic "hall (e #eeme# e- in)ui"he# i& here i" a &in#in) in a &inal .u#)men in he criminal ac i!n ha he ac !r !mi""i!n &r!m *hich he ci%il lia(ili ' ma' ari"e #i# n! e-i" . (2a) (La" +ara)ra+h$ Sec i!n 2$ Rule 111) (anE ,f the accused is ac;uitted, it will not bar the offended party from filing a civil action because the e?tinction of the penal action does not carry with it the e?tinction of the civil action because for all you )now in the civil case the accused may be found liable. ,t is now emphasi<ed in the new rules $ho%ever, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extin'uished if there is a findin' in a final &ud'ment in the criminal action that the act or omission from %hich the civil liability may arise did not exist.* This means that if the accused is ac;uitted based on reasonable doubt, there could still be civil liability arising from the crime or when the accused is ac;uitted based on an e?empting circumstance. 9ut when the accused is ac;uitted on the ground that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not e?ist, that is the end of the civil liability arising from a crime. Q: :owever, if , file an action based on ;uasi*delict, can it prosper A: (%+, because it is now established that the action based on delict is e?tinguished but not on ;uasi*delict, a contract, or other sources of obligation. This is the ruling in the case of #ayotas in criminal law B that, for e?ample, once the accused dies, the civil liability arising from crime is already e?tinguished but you can still file a case against the estate of the deceased accused provided you can find another source of the obligation. This ruling was emphasi<ed in the 166H case of 48

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

SALAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 2?@ SCRA @5:, =anuary 00, 166H 8EL;: The civil liability referred to in this Rule is the civil liability arising from crime 2 ex delicto7. ,t is not the civil liability for ;uasi*delict which is allowed to be brought $separately and independently& of the criminal action by Art. '' of the #ivil #ode. The civil liability based on such cause of action is not e?tinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. ,ndeed, because the offended party does not intervene in the criminal prosecution, it is entirely possible that all the witnesses presented in the civil action may not have been presented by the public prosecutor in the criminal action with the result that the accused in the criminal case may be ac;uitted. +o remember ha, in the case of Salao the offended party has no intervention in the criminal case. :e does not )now how the public prosecutor handled the case, ba)a ang testigo )ulang )aya na*ac;uit. +o paano a)o 2offended party7 , will file my own civil case and maybe , will use ;uasi*delict as the basis and no longer the delict. These are the complicated portion of this rule. As a matter of fact, there are ;ueer cases decided by the +# even before the new rules li)e the 16H4 case of RUFO CAURICIO CONSTRUCTION vs. IAC N!%em(er 24$ 15?4 FACTS: A driver of the construction company collided with a car, )illing the owner. What was filed was a criminal case against the driver. -o reservation was made. Therefore the civil liability arising from the crime is already instituted. The driver was convicted. .n appeal, the driver died. ISSUE: What will happen to the civil liability arising from the crime #an you enforce it against the employer based on Article 1!', R"# on subsidiary liability 8EL;: -., because there was no judgment of conviction which became final. There must be a judgment of conviction against the employee/ it must be final/ he must be proven insolvent. 9ut the trouble is he died. +o you cannot enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer. :owever, if this was ;uasi*delict, you can file a direct action against he employer because in ;uasi*delict, the liability of the employer is primary, not subsidiary. The +# treated the case as an action for ;uasi*delict against the employer but that is unfair for the employer because he never participated in the trial of the civil case. According to the +#, we will put it bac) and now you will cross*e?amine them 2Gean ,: AnoCng )laseng procedure ito E7. This is what the +# said: $The death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal or before the judgment of conviction became final and e?ecutory e?tinguished his criminal liability but not his civil liability should the liability or obligation arise not from a crime but from a ;uasi*delict. The liability of the employer here would not be subsidiary but solidary with his driver unless said employer can prove there was no negligence on his part at all, that is, if he can prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of his driver.& $,nasmuch as the employer was not a party in the criminal case, and to grant him his day in court for the purpose of cross*e?amining the prosecution witnesses on their testimonies on the driverJs alleged negligence and the amount of damages to which the heirs of the victim are entitled, as well as to introduce any evidence or witnesses he may care to present in his defense, the hearing on the motion to ;uash the subsidiary writ of e?ecution must be reopened precisely for the purpose adverted to hereinabove.& This is the only instance , )new that the criminal case against a driver ended up as a case for ;uasi*delict against the employer. ,n other words, sh*in*ort*cut*short*cut ng +# yung procedure ehE

49

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

SEC. :. !hen civil action may proceed independently . In he ca"e" +r!%i#e# in Ar icle" :2$ ::$ :@ an# 214B !& he Ci%il C!#e !& he Phili++ine"$ he in#e+en#en ci%il ac i!n ma' (e (r!u)h (' he !&&en#e# +ar '. I "hall +r!cee# in#e+en#en l' !& he criminal ac i!n an# "hall re/uire !nl' a +re+!n#erance !& e%i#ence. In n! ca"e$ h!*e%er$ ma' he !&&en#e# +ar ' rec!%er #ama)e" *ice &!r he "ame ac !r !mi""i!n char)e# in he criminal ac i!n. (:a) DetCs go bac) to basic rules. Q: Which ta)es precedence when there is reservation, the criminal or the civil action A: The criminal action ta)es precedence. The filing of the criminal suspends the filing of the civil action. ,f the civil action is filed, the civil action is deemed suspended unless there would be consolidation. -ow, the rule about the filing of the criminal action will suspend the filing of the civil action, and the rule about the subse;uent filing of the criminal action will suspend the trial of the civil case, however, G.%+ -.T apply if the civil action is classified as an independent civil action under +ection '. This is another important provision. Q: What are the independent civil actions under the law A: They are those covered by Articles '0, '', '1, and 0145 of the -ew #ivil #ode. Ta)e note that you have to )now what is Article '0, '', '1, 0145. ,t is not enough that you memori<e the articles. What is Article '0 all about What )ind of civil action is referred thereto .r what is the civil action referred to in Article '1 , thin) nandito yung when the civil action is based on a violation of a constitutional right. Article '' is the most famousK when the civil action is defamation, fraud and physical injuries. :ere 2+ection '7, the criminal action and the civil action can be filed simultaneously and the trial of the two cases can go on separately and independently of the other without regard to the latter. Inli)e when the civil action is not classified as independent, where it is governed by +ection 0, it will be suspended in the meantime. That is the important point to remember in this rule. CODUANACO$ DR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 29: SCRA B25 FACTS: ,n this case, there was an independent civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from defamation filed by #ojuangco against a media company. +o there were two 207 cases B a criminal action for libel under the R"# and a civil case for damages arising from defamation under Article '' of the #ivil #ode. The ;uestion is: can the two cases be consolidated under +ection 0 B because one argument is you only consolidate the civil action if it is not independent action. 9ut anyway, independent man ito B why will consolidate ISSUE: 3ay a civil action for damages arising from defamation 2independent civil action7 and the criminal case for libel be consolidated 8EL;: (%+, they can be consolidated under Rule '1 of the Rules of #ourt, citing again the case of Ca+os vs. "eralta, because there is a common ;uestion of law and fact. $+ection 1, Rule '1 of the Rules of #ourt authori<es consolidation of actions involving common ;uestions of law or fact pending before the court. The purpose or object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested doc)ets, simplify the wor) of the trial court, and save unnecessary costs or e?pense/ in short, the attainment of justice with the least e?pense and ve?ation to the parties litigants. This provision applies to both civil and criminal actions. The case Ca+os had removed any doubt on this point.& @+o even if we disregard Rule 111 +ection 0, it can be consolidated under Rule '1A $There is yet a further consideration why in the instant case consolidation of civil case and the criminal case should be allowed. What is involved is the crime of libel. As correctly stated by petitioners, per the third paragraph of Article '5! of the Revised "enal #ode, as amended, the criminal case for libel and the civil action for damages arising therefrom must be filed in the same court.& 50

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

,n other words, if there is a second reason why consolidation should be allowed, that reason is Article '5! of the R"# on libel. While there maybe 0 separate actions in libel B damages and criminal case B Article '5! orders the consolidation of the two. That is mandated under Article '5!. The ne?t ;uestion is: +uppose , will file an independent civil action, do , have to ma)e a reservation The civil action specified is an independent one. Ta)e note that under +ection 1, when you file a criminal case without ma)ing a reservation, the civil action is already deemed instituted unless you ma)e a reservation. There were some confusions on that point because in the old cases of -ARCIA .S. /01RI21 280 +#RA7, A#300A,A .S. 4ARA#3 284 +#RA7, the +# implied that when the civil action is independent, there is no need to ma)e a reservation. That is an implication because it is independent B why should its filing be dependent on reservation :owever, the 16H8 Rules on criminal procedure made reservation mandatory even in independent civil actions. +ection ' of the 16H8 Rules says, $in the cases provided in Articles '0, '', '1 and 0145 of the #ivil #ode, the independent civil action %hich has been reserved may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently.& +o in the instructive case of 4A,IA-1 .S. CA, 208' +#RA 5417 as well as the case of SA, I023/1,S1 .S. CA, 20H6 +#RA 85H7, the +# ruled that there is still a need, whether a civil action is independent or not, to ma)e a reservation, otherwise the civil action is deemed instituted. -.W, you will notice in +ection ' of the new rules, that phrase $ %hich has been reserved& is deleted. +o based on the language of the new rules, babali) na naman tayo sa /01RI21 and 4ARA#3 ruling, that an independent civil action -%%G -.T 9% R%+%RF%G. Therefore, the ruling in the 4A,IA-1 and SA, I023/1,S1 cases is deemed abandoned by the +#. SEC. @. 3ffect of death on civil actions. The #ea h !& he accu"e# a& er arrai)nmen an# #urin) he +en#enc' !& he criminal ac i!n "hall e- in)ui"h he ci%il lia(ili ' ari"in) &r!m he #elic . 8!*e%er$ he in#e+en#en ci%il ac i!n in" i u e# un#er "ec i!n : !& hi" Rule !r *hich herea& er i" in" i u e# ! en&!rce lia(ili ' ari"in) &r!m ! her "!urce" !& !(li)a i!n ma' (e c!n inue# a)ain" he e" a e !r le)al re+re"en a i%e !& he accu"e# a& er +r!+er "u(" i u i!n !r a)ain" "ai# e" a e$ a" he ca"e ma' (e. The heir" !& he accu"e# ma' (e "u(" i u e# &!r he #ecea"e# *i h!u re/uirin) he a++!in men !& an e-ecu !r !r a#mini" ra !r an# he c!ur ma' a++!in a )uar#ian ad litem &!r he min!r heir". The c!ur "hall &!r h*i h !r#er "ai# le)al re+re"en a i%e !r re+re"en a i%e" ! a++ear an# (e "u(" i u e# *i hin a +eri!# !& hir ' (:9) #a'" &r!m n! ice. A &inal .u#)men en ere# in &a%!r !& he !&&en#e# +ar ' "hall (e en&!rce# in he manner e"+eciall' +r!%i#e# in he"e rule" &!r +r!"ecu in) claim" a)ain" he e" a e !& he #ecea"e#. I& he accu"e# #ie" (e&!re arrai)nmen $ he ca"e "hall (e #i"mi""e# *i h!u +re.u#ice ! an' ci%il ac i!n he !&&en#e# +ar ' ma' &ile a)ain" he e" a e !& he #ecea"e#. (n) +ection 1 is entirely new. The first sentence is enunciated in the case of #ayotas B the death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall e?tinguish the civil liability arising from the delict B the civil liability arising from the crime is deemed e?tinguished which you have ta)en up already in criminal law. :owever, the independent civil action instituted under +ection ' of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources B meaning, another source other than the delict B may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution as the case may be. 9ali) na naman tayo sa civil procedure nito. The action survives B there will be substitution. This is actually a repetition of civil procedure B $the heirs of the accused maybe substituted for the deceased %ithout re5uirin' the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a 'uardian)* That is a repetition of Rule ', about substitution of a party. 9ut the civil action here refers to a civil action where the source of a claim is not a crime, wala na eh, e?tinguished na )aya it could be a contract or a ;uasi*delict. Q: .n the third paragraph, assuming there is a judgment. :ow will you enforce it 9y e?ecution 51

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

A: -.. (ou must file it as a claim against he estate. As a rule, there is no e?ecution. All the creditors mush share e;ually with the assets. That is +pecial "roceedings: what claims must be filed against the estate of the deceased Q: Dast paragraph. ,n case before arraignment, namatay B wala naE B the criminal liability is e?tinguished. What happens now to any possible civil action which the offended party may file A: :e can file it against the estate of the deceased but the assumption is, it is based on ;uasi*delict or any other sources of obligation other than the crime. SEC. 3. Jud'ment in civil action not a bar. A &inal .u#)men ren#ere# in a ci%il ac i!n a("!l%in) he #e&en#an &r!m ci%il lia(ili ' i" n! a (ar ! a criminal ac i!n a)ain" he #e&en#an for the same act or omission subject of the civil action. (@a) +ection 8 is the e?act opposite of +ection 0 because the last paragraph of +ection 0 says $the e?tinction of the penal action does not carry with it the e?tinction of the civil action.& ,tong +ection 8 naman, bali)tadE B the e?tinction of civil action. ,s the criminal action also e?tinguished -.. $A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant.& -ow, what is new here is the last clause B $for the same act or omission subject of the civil action& B because for all you )now, the evidence submitted in civil case might be incomplete and the government has better evidence in the criminal action. SEC B. Suspension by reason of pre&udicial 5uestion . A +e i i!n &!r "u"+en"i!n !& he criminal ac i!n (a"e# u+!n he +en#enc' !& a +re.u#icial /ue" i!n in a ci%il ac i!n ma' (e &ile# in he !&&ice !& he +r!"ecu !r !r he c!ur c!n#uc in) he +reliminar' in%e" i)a i!n. When he criminal ac i!n ha" (een &ile# in c!ur &!r rial$ he +e i i!n ! "u"+en# "hall (e &ile# in he "ame criminal ac i!n a an' ime (e&!re he +r!"ecu i!n re" ". (Ba) SEC. 4. 3lements of pre&udicial 5uestion . The elemen " !& a +re.u#icial /ue" i!n" areE (a) he +re%i!u"l' in" i u e# ci%il ac i!n in%!l%e" an i""ue "imilar !r in ima el' rela e# ! he i""ue rai"e# in he "u("e/uen criminal ac i!n$ an# (() he re"!lu i!n !& "uch i""ue #e ermine" *he her !r n! he criminal ac i!n ma' +r!cee#. (3a) The concept of pre&udicial 5uestion is the e?act opposite of +ection 0 because in +ection 0, unless independent civil action, the filing of the criminal action will cause the suspension of the civil action. ,to naman, bali)tad B the filing of the civil case will suspend the criminal case B that is, if there is a prejudicial ;uestion involved in the civil case. Q: What is a prejudicial ;uestion A: A prejudicial ;uestion is that arising in the civil case but which is so intimately connected with the issues involved in the criminal case as to be determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused. 23endiola vs. 3acadaeg, >ebruary 04, 16517 +o the resolution of the civil action will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The guilt or innocence of the accused will depend on the outcome of the issue in the civil case )aya paunahin natin ang civil. Q: :ow do you determine whether a ;uestion is prejudicial A: The elements of a prejudicial ;uestion are found in +ection 4: 1. the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subse;uent criminal action, and 2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Q: What will happen to the criminal case filed in the court 52

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

A: ,t will be suspended. The accused will have to file a motion for the suspension of the proceeding. >or example, Rod is accused of bigamy for marrying twice. :owever, there is a civil case also pending where the issue is whether his first marriage is valid or not. Lung valid yon, patay )aE B bigamyE Lung void naman yun, there is no bigamy. PEOPLE vs. ARAAON 5@ Phil. :34 FACTS: "ches contracted a second marriage with #holo, a married man. The latter subse;uently married Thea, the second girl. #holo was prosecuted for bigamy. Thea, the second wife filed an action to declare her marriage as defective because of the force employed against her by #holo. And, even if his first marriage is not valid, sabi niya 2Thea7, yung a)in ay voidable pa rin because my consent was secured through force or intimidation. +abi naman ni #holo, )ung ganun, it is prejudicial. We will have to wait for the result of that case filed by the second wife 2Thea7 whether really , used force or intimidation to get her consent. +o the case of bigamy should not be tried. 8EL;: #holo is wrong because it was him, who is accused of bigamy, who employed the force. #holo cannot use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on the criminal act. ,)aw and nag* gawa ng force tapos you use the force to suspend the criminal case Gi puwede yanE There is something wrong in that situation. 9ut assuming it is Thea who is accused of bigamy for contracting a second marriage with the man. And the woman says, $It is true pero pinilit niya a6o. Ayo6o man ba7* +o she filed an action to declare the second marriage defective on the ground of vitiated consent. AyanE "rejudicial yan because she is the victim @of force and intimidationA. Really, if her second marriage was obtained without her consent, how can she be guilty of bigamy (anE "wede yanE #A+%: 2decided by #ourt of Appeals7 A criminal case was filed against Lenneth for forcible abduction with rape. While the criminal case was pending, there was a supposed marriage between him and his victim 2:annah7 para ma*e?tinguish ang criminal liability ni Lenneth. 9ut :annah filed a case to declare the marriage as null and void. Question: Will the pendency of the civil case for nullity of marriage filed by :annah be considered as prejudicial ;uestion to determine whether the forcible abduction case will proceed to the +# RID,-M: According to the #A, (%+ because of this argument: suppose it is proven that the marriage between the Lenneth and the :annah is null and void, therefore, the criminal liability of Lenneth for forcible abduction with rape cannot be e?tinguished because the marriage is a false one. :owever, if it turned out that the marriage is really valid, then the criminal case for abduction will definitely be e?tinguished. #A+%: This one is s;uatting. AndrN was accused under the anti*s;uatting law for occupying the property of %umir. ,n another civil case, the issue is ownership of the same property between AndrN and %umir. They are ;uarreling as to who is really the owner. :ere, )ailangan muna matulog ang criminal case. Gepende yan )asi )ung sinong manalo sa civil case. :ow can you be a s;uatter if it turns out that you are the owner of property. +o it is considered as prejudicial ;uestion. The last point to consider here: Q: #an you raise a prejudicial ;uestion as a ground to suspend the preliminary investigation before the fiscalCs office .r, does the issue of prejudicial ;uestion only applicable when the case reaches the court A: "rejudicial ;uestion can be raised as a ground to suspend a preliminary investigation. +ection 5 says, $a petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial ;uestion in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.& .f course, when the criminal action has been filed in court, the petition for suspension must be filed in the same criminal action. 53

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Cases

The first case where the +# said that prejudicial ;uestion can be raised even in the preliminary investigation was first laid down in the 161! case of 23 031, .S. 4A#A,A- 240 "hil. 0!07. :owever in 1650, the +# had a change of mind in the case of 2ASA00A .S. CI 8 A 1R,38, 28 +#RA 16'7 where the +# said, the suspension on the ground of prejudicial ;uestion only applies when the case is already in court but not where the case is still under preliminary investigation. The ruling in 4abana' is abandoned. The 2asalla ruling was reiterated in the case of /A0-9I .S. "R1.I,CIA0 /ISCA0 1/ "A4"A,-A, 50 +#RA 150. :owever, when the 16H8 rules were enacted, you will notice in +ection 5 that the issue of prejudicial ;uestion may be raised in the office of the prosecutor or the judge conducting the preliminary investigation. That means the resurrection of the 4abana' ruling in 161! and the abandonment of the subse;uent cases of 2asalla and /al'ui, Jr. +o binali) nila ang 4abana'.

SPACE0FILLER F1E A golfer was losing very badly in his club championship when he hit his ball into the rough. 9ending down to retrieve the ball, he came face to face with a leprechaun. $Would you li)e some help with your game & he as)ed. $(es, please,& replied the man e?citedly. $.L,& said the leprechaun. $ThereCs just one condition. %very time you call upon me for assistance, you will lose one year of your se? life.& The player agreed and won the championship by two stro)es. Metting into his car to go home, the golfer found the leprechaun sitting on the dashboard with a noteboo) and pencil. $, assisted you ten times during the game,& the leprechaun reminded him. $(ou )now the rules. -ow, whatCs your name & $>ather .C>lattery,& replied the golfer. Source: Reader:s 2i'est, January ;<<=

54