MARY GRACE L.

RENON
Criminal Procedures

BL 3

YAKULT PHILIPPINES VS CA
190 SCRA 357
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries. Later, a complaint for damages was filed by respondent represented by his father,
against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court. Trial court rendered decision awarding damages
to respondents. Petitioners appealed on the thesis that the civil action for damages for injuries
arising from alleged criminal negligence of Salvado, being without malice, cannot be filed
independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Further, it is contended
that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure such a separate civil
action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed, before
presentation of evidence by the prosecution, would prosper even if there was no reservation to
file a separate civil action.
HELD:
Yes. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of
indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. The purpose
of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice
for the same act or omission.
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in
the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence
in the criminal action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the
actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an
express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents
its evidence.

MARY GRACE L. RENON

Criminal Procedures

BL 3

PEOPLE VS ARAGON
94 PHIL 357
Facts:
Defendant is charged in the CFI of Cebu with the crime of bigamy, for having contracted
a second marriage with one Efigenia C. Palomer while his previous valid marriage with Martina
Godinez was still subsisting and had not been dissolved. While the case was pending trial, Efigenia
C. Palomer filed a civil action in the same Court of First Instance of Cebu against the defendant appellant, alleging that the latter "by means of force, threats and intimidation of bodily harm,
forced plaintiff to marry him", and praying that their marriage be annulled . Thereupon,
defendant-appellant filed a motion in the criminal case for bigamy, praying that the criminal
charge be provisionally dismissed, on the ground that the civil action for annulment of the second
marriage is a prejudicial question. The court denied this motion on the ground that the validity
of the second marriage may be determined in the very criminal action for bigamy. Against this
order this appeal has been presented to this court.
Issue:
May the defendant use the supposed use of force and intimidation in contracting the
second marriage to dismiss the case of bigamy against him?
Held:
There is no question that if the allegations of the complaint on time the marriage
contracted by defendant-appellant with Efigenia C. Palomer is illegal and void (Sec. 29,Act
3613 otherwise known as the Marriage Law). Its nullity, however, is no defense to the criminal
action for bigamy filed against him. The supposed use of force and intimidation against the
woman, Palomer, even if it were true, is not a bar or defense to said action. Palomer, were she
the one charged with bigamy, could perhaps raise said force or intimidation as a defense, because
she may not be considered as having freely and voluntarily committed the act if she was forced
to the marriage by intimidation. But not the other party, who used the force or intimidation. The
latter may not use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act.

MARY GRACE L. RENON

Criminal Procedures

BL 3

CONJUANGCO, JR. VS CA
203 SCRA 629
Facts:
Claiming that the publication alludes to petitioners-spouses and that it is false, malicious and
constitutes a vicious attack on petitioner-wife's virtue, honor and character as it imputes her not
only the corrupt and immoral act of "following up" an alleged loan, but also the commission of
corrupt and immoral acts of adultery and/or prostitution, petitioners filed the then Court of First
Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Quezon City a criminal case for libel and civil action for
Damages based on Libel against the Graphic Publishing Co., Inc. Petitioners filed therein separate
motions to consolidate the criminal case with the civil case alleging that the evidence to be
presented in both would be the same much valuable time and effort of the court as well as that
of the parties would be saved by such consolidation; and, moreover Article 360 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, provides, inter alia, that in libel the civil action shall be filed in the same
court where the criminal action is filed and vice-versa, provided, however, that the court where
the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other courts, which was granted by the court. Hence, this instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the criminal case and the separate and independent civil action to enforce
the civil liability arising from the former, filed pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, may be
consolidated for joint trial.
Held:
Yes. Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court authorizes consolidation of actions involving
common questions 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 dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, and save unnecessary costs or
expense; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties
litigants. This provision applies to both civil and criminal actions. Caos and Naguiat had removed
any doubt on this point.
It is self-evident that the civil case and criminal case involve common or identical
questions of fact and law, and that they would even have the same witnesses. These
considerations alone justify the exercise by the court of its discretion to consolidate the cases for
joint hearing to attain the salutary purpose of consolidation.
There is further consideration why in the instant case consolidation should be allowed.
What is involved is the crime of libel. As correctly stated by petitioners, per the third paragraph
of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the criminal case for libel and the civil
action for damages arising therefrom must be filed in the same court.