SPOUSESPACISVS.

MORALES
G.R.No.169467
February25,2010
FACTS:petitionersfiledwiththetrialcourtacivilcasefordamagesagainstrespondentMorales.
PetitionersaretheparentsofAlfredPacis,a17yearoldstudentwhodiedinashootingincidentinsidethe
TopGunFirearmsandAmmunitionsStoreinBaguioCity.Moralesistheownerofthegunstore.
Onthefatefulday,Alfredwasinthegunstore,withMatibagandHerbolarioassalesagentsand
caretakersofthestorewhileownerMoraleswasinManila.ThegunwhichkilledAlfredisagunowned
byastorecustomerwhichwasleftwithMoralesforrepairs,whichheplacedinsideadrawer.Since
MoraleswouldbegoingtoManila,heleftthekeystothestorewiththecaretakers.Itappearsthatthe
caretakerstookthegunfromthedrawerandplaceditontopofatable.Attractedbythesightofthegun,
theyoungAlfredgotholdofthesame.MatibagaskedAlfredtoreturnthegun.Thelatterfollowedand
handedtheguntoMatibag.Itwentoff,thebullethittingtheyoungAlfredinthehead.
AcriminalcaseforhomicidewasfiledagainstMatibag.Matibag,however,wasacquittedofthecharge
againsthimbecauseoftheexemptingcircumstanceofaccident underArt.12,par.4oftheRPC.
Byagreementoftheparties,theevidenceadducedinthecriminalcaseforhomicideagainstMatibagwas
reproducedandadoptedbythemaspartoftheirevidenceintheinstantcase.
Thetrialcourtrendereditsdecisioninfavorofpetitioners,orderingthedefendanttopayplaintiffs
indemnityforthedeathofAlfred,actualdamagesforthehospitalizationandburial,expensesincurredby
theplaintiffs,compensatorydamages,MDandAF.
RespondentappealedtotheCA,whichreversedthetrialcourtsDecisionandabsolvedrespondentfrom
civilliabilityunderArticle2180oftheCivilCode.MRdenied,hencethispetition.
ISSUE:WasMoralesnegligent?
HELD:Petitiongranted.TheCAdecisionissetasideandthetrialcourtsDecisionreinstated.
YES
Thiscasefordamagesaroseoutoftheaccidentalshootingofpetitioners son.UnderArticle1161ofthe
CivilCode,petitionersmayenforcetheirclaimfordamagesbasedonthecivilliabilityarisingfromthe
crimeunderArticle100oftheRPCortheymayopttofileanindependentcivilactionfordamagesunder
theCivilCode.Inthiscase,insteadofenforcingtheirclaimfordamagesinthehomicidecasefiled
againstMatibag,petitionersoptedtofileanindependentcivilactionfordamagesagainstrespondent
whomtheyallegedwasMatibagsemployer.PetitionersbasedtheirclaimfordamagesunderArticles
2176and2180oftheCivilCode.
**
UnlikethesubsidiaryliabilityoftheemployerunderArticle103oftheRPC,theliabilityoftheemployer,
oranypersonforthatmatter,underArticle2176oftheCivilCodeisprimaryanddirect,basedona
personsownnegligence.Article2176states:
Art.2176.Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,is
obligedtopayforthedamagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractual
relationbetweentheparties,iscalledquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.
Thiscaseinvolvestheaccidentaldischargeofafirearminsideagunstore.UnderPNPCircularNo.9,
entitledthePolicyonFirearmsandAmmunitionDealership/Repair, apersonwhoisinthebusinessof
purchasingandsellingoffirearmsandammunitionmustmaintainbasicsecurityandsafetyrequirements
ofagundealer,otherwisehisLicensetoOperateDealershipwillbesuspendedorcanceled.
Indeed,ahigherdegreeofcareisrequiredofsomeonewhohasinhispossessionorunderhiscontrolan
instrumentalityextremelydangerousincharacter,suchasdangerousweaponsorsubstances.Suchperson
inpossessionorcontrolofdangerousinstrumentalitieshasthedutytotakeexceptionalprecautionsto

preventanyinjurybeingdonethereby.Unliketheordinaryaffairsoflifeorbusinesswhichinvolvelittle
ornorisk,abusinessdealingwithdangerousweaponsrequirestheexerciseofahigherdegreeofcare.
Asagunstoreowner,respondentispresumedtobeknowledgeableaboutfirearmssafetyandshouldhave
knownnevertokeepaloadedweaponinhisstoretoavoidunreasonableriskofharmorinjurytoothers.
Respondenthasthedutytoensurethatallthegunsinhisstorearenotloaded.Firearmsshouldbestored
unloadedandseparatefromammunitionwhenthefirearmsarenotneededforreadyaccessdefensiveuse.
Withmorereason,gunsacceptedbythestoreforrepairshouldnotbeloadedpreciselybecausetheyare
defectiveandmaycauseanaccidentaldischargesuchaswhathappenedinthiscase.Respondentwas
clearlynegligentwhenheacceptedthegunforrepairandplaceditinsidethedrawerwithoutensuring
firstthatitwasnotloaded.Inthefirstplace,thedefectivegunshouldhavebeenstoredinavault.Before
acceptingthedefectivegunforrepair,respondentshouldhavemadesurethatitwasnotloadedtoprevent
anyuntowardaccident.Indeed,respondentshouldneveracceptafirearmfromanotherperson,untilthe
cylinderoractionisopenandhehaspersonallycheckedthattheweaponiscompletelyunloaded.For
failingtoinsurethatthegunwasnotloaded,respondenthimselfwasnegligent.Furthermore,itwasnot
showninthiscasewhetherrespondenthadaLicensetoRepairwhichauthorizeshimtorepairdefective
firearmstorestoreitsoriginalcompositionorenhanceorupgradefirearms.
Clearly,respondentdidnotexercisethedegreeofcareanddiligencerequiredofagoodfatherofafamily,
muchlessthedegreeofcarerequiredofsomeonedealingwithdangerousweapons,aswouldexempthim
fromliabilityinthiscase.

Casupananvs.Laroya
Facts:

CasupananandLaroyawereinavehicularaccident.Laroyainstitutedacriminalcase
againstLaroya.

CasupananontheotherhandfiledacivilcaseagainstLaroya.

Laroyamovedforthedismissalofthecivilcaseonthegroundofforumshopping.
MCTCdismissedthecivilcase.TheappealinRTCwasalsodenied.
Issue:
WastheCivilcaseproper?
Held:Yes,thereisnoforumshoppinginthecase.Althoughthecasesarosefromthe
sameincident,thecausesofactionweredifferent.
Thefirstcasewasbasedonculpacriminalwhiletheotherisculpaaquiliana.
Thecontentionthatthecivilaspectisdeemedinstitutedwiththecriminalactionisnot
meritorioussincetheruledoesnotapplyinindependentcivilactionsbasedonArticle
32,33,34and2176oftheCivilcode
ANAMERSALAZARv.THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESandJ.Y.BROTHERSMARKETING
CORPORATION
G.R.No.151931,23September2003,SecondDivision(CallejoSr.,J.)

Ifthetrialcourtissuesanorderorrendersjudgmentnotonlygrantingthedemurrertoevidenceofthe
accusedandacquittinghimbutalsoonthecivilliability,thejudgmentonthecivilaspectofthecase
wouldbeanullityasitviolatestheconstitutionalrighttodueprocess.
In1997,petitionerAnmerSalazarandNenaJaucianTimariowerechargedwithestafabeforetheLegazpi
CityRegionalTrialCourt.
TheestafacaseallegedlystemmedfromthepaymentofacheckworthP214,000toprivaterespondent
J.Y.BrothersMarketingCorporation(JYBMC)throughJersonYaoforthepurchaseof300bagsofrice.
ThecheckwasdishonoredbydraweePrudentialBankasitisdrawnagainstaclosedaccount.Salazar
replacedsaidcheckwithanewone,thistimedrawnagainstSolidBank.Itisagaindishonoredforbeing
drawnagainstuncollecteddeposit(DAUD).
TheDAUDmeansthattheaccounttowhichthecheckwasdrawnhadsufficientfunds.However,the
fundcannotbeusedbecauseitwascollectedagainstadepositedcheckwhichisyettobecleared.
Trialensued.Aftertheprosecutionpresenteditsevidence,Salazarfiledademurrertoevidencewithleave
ofcourt,whichthetrialcourtgranted.
In2002,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentacquittingSalazar,butorderedhertoremittoJYBMC
P214,000.Thetrialcourtruledthattheevidenceoftheprosecutionfailedtoestablishtheexistenceof
conspiracybeyondreasonabledoubtbetweenthepetitionerandtheissuerofthecheck,Timario.Asa
mereendorserofthecheck,Salazar'sbreachofwarrantywasagoodoneanddidnotamounttoestafa
underArticle315(2)(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode.Timarioremainedatlarge.
Asaresult,Salazarfiledamotionforreconsiderationonthecivilaspectofthedecisionwithapleatobe
allowedtopresentevidence.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.
Becauseofthedenialofthemotion,shefiledpetitionforreviewoncertioraribeforetheSupremeCourt
allegingshewasdenieddueprocessasthetrialcourtdidnotgivehertheopportunitytoadduceevidence
tocontroverthercivilliability.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotSalazarwasdenieddueprocess.
U.S.T.LawReview,VolumeXLVIII,January December2004
RECENTJURISPRUDENCE REMEDIALLAW
HELD:
Salazarshouldhavebeengivenbythetrialcourtthechancetopresentherevidenceasregardsthecivil
aspectofthecase.
UndertheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,theCourtexplainedthedemurrertoevidencepartakesof
amotiontodismissthecaseforthefailureoftheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Inacasewheretheaccusedfilesademurrertoevidencewithoutleaveofcourt,therebywaiveshisright
topresentevidenceandsubmitsthecasefordecisiononthebasisoftheprosecution'sevidencehehasthe

righttoadduceevidencenotonlyonthecriminalaspect,butalsoonthecivilaspectofthecaseofthe
demurrerisdeniedbythecourt.
Inaddition,theCourtsaidifthedemurrerisgrantedandtheaccusedisacquittedbythecourt,theaccused
hastherighttoadduceevidenceonthecivilaspectofthecaseunlessthecourtalsodeclaresthattheactor
omissionfromwhichthecivilliabilitymayarisedidnotexist.
Ifthetrialcourtissuesanorderorrendersjudgmentnotonlygrantingthedemurrertoevidenceofthe
accusedandacquittinghimbutalsoonthecivilliability,thejudgmentonthecivilaspectofthecase
wouldbeanullityasitviolatestheconstitutionalrighttodueprocess.
TheSupremeCourtexplainedthatthetrialcourterredinrenderingjudgmentonthecivilaspectofthe
caseandorderingthepetitionertopayforherpurchasesfromtheprivatecomplainantevenbeforethe
petitionercouldadduceevidencethereonispatentlyadenialofherrighttodueprocess.
CitingAantevsSavelana,Jr.,theCourtstressedthatSection14(1)and(2)ofArticleIIIofthe1987
Constitutionwhichareelementaryanddeeplyimbeddedinourowncriminaljusticesystemare
mandatoryandindispensable.Theprinciplesfinduniversalacceptanceandareterselyexpressedinthe
oftquotedstatementthatproceduraldueprocesscannotpossiblybemetwithouta"lawwhichhears
beforeitcondemns,whichproceedsuponinquiryandrendersjudgmentonlyaftertrial".