DAYAP v SENDIONG

FACTS:Dayap was charged with reckless

imprudence resulting to homicide, less serious physical injuries and damage to property. It was alleged that Dayap was the driver of a cargo truck which figured in an accident with a Colt Galant driven by Lou Gene Sendiong causing instant death to the latter and less serious physical injuries to the latter’s passenger. The MTC granted Dayap Demurrer to Evidence saying that prosecution failed to establish that Dayap was really the one driving the cargo truck. The MTC further stated that prosecution also wasn’t able to prove the death and injuries of the victim as there were not death certificate and medical certificates submitted as evidence. The MTC gave credence to the evidence of the Dayap, showing that it was the victim’s car which swerved into the cargo truck’s lane thereby being the proximate cause of the accident. The MTC relied on the accident sketch contained in the police blotter to support this conclusion.

Aggrieved, Sendiong filed a petition for certiorari under 65 with the RTC. The RTC affirmed the acquittal of Dayap but ordered the case remanded to the MTC for the hearing of the civil aspect.

Sendiong filed a petition for review (42) with the CA. the CA concluded that it was the RTC which had jurisdiction and not the MTC. The CA explained that according to Cuyos v Garcia, jurisdiction over damage to property cases should be determined by the imposable fine and not the penalty for the physical injuries and following BP 129, MTC only has jurisdiction over those felonies with imposable fine not exceeding 10,000. Since in this case, no proof of total damage was given and Sendiong claims 1.5M in civil damages, the same should have been brought before the RTC.

ISSUE:Whether or not a grant of a demurrer

is reviewable – ONLY UNDER 65Whether or not remand to the MTC of

the case for the determination of civil liability was proper – NO

HELD:A grant of a demurrer to evidence is

tantamount to an acquittal and cannot be reviewed on appeal otherwise, the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy is offended. A demurrer must be filed after the prosecution rests its case. It entails and appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and when the same if found insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the demurrer is proper. Once granted, the court must enter a partial judgment of conviction but must continue

with the trial for the reception of the defense’ evidence on the civil aspect. This is because at the moment the demurrer is granted, only prosecution’s evidence (both as to the criminal and civil aspect) is on record. However, the grant of a demurrer may still be reviewed by the courts but only on grounds of GADLEJ under rule 65. In this case, there being not finding of GADLEJ on the part of the MTC, the demurrer stands.

The acquittal of an accused does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability when (1) acquittal was based on reasonable doubt (2) court determines that there is only a civil liability (3) the civil liability of the accused does not arise or is not based on the crime for which he was acquitted. On the other hand, acquittal of an accused carries the extinction of civil liability when (1) there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or (2) the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. In this case, the acquittal by the MTC was based on findings that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist and that petitioner did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him; hence, petitioner’s civil liability has been extinguished by his acquittal. Thus, because there was no civil liability to hear, the case should not have been remanded to the MTC

People vs Mamantak G.R. No.174659 July 28, 2009

Facts:

At about 3:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999, Teresa went with Christopher and her elder sister Zenaida to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower in Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. Teresa and Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa took her seat, Christopher, a two-year old minor, followed Zenaida to the counter. Barely had Christopher gone from

his mother’s sight when she realized that he had disappeared. She and her sister frantically looked for him inside and outside the premises of the fast food outlet, to no avail.

As their continued search for the child was futile, they reported him missing to the nearest police detachment. The following day, Teresa went to several TV and radio stations to inform the public of the loss of Christopher and to appeal for help and information. On February 25, 2001, Teresa received a call from a woman who sounded like a Muslim. The caller claimed to have custody of Christopher and asked for P30,000 in exchange for the boy. On March 27, 2001, the same Muslim-sounding woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent picture of Christopher. She then contacted the mysterious woman through the cellphone number the latter had previously given her. When the woman instructed her to immediately board a ship for Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not raised the

ransom money yet. They then agreed to conduct the pay off in the morning of April 7, 2001 at Pitang’s

Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte. Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). A team was formed and Police Officer (PO)3 Juliet Palafox was designated to act as Teresa’s niece. Together with the PAOCTF team, Teresa left for Mindanao on April 4, 2001. On April 7, 2001, they arrived in Iligan City and proceeded to the designated meeting place.

At around 8:30 a.m., while Teresa and PO3 Palafox were waiting at Pitang’s Carinderia, two women came. They were Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak. Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and asked who they were waiting for. Teresa replied that they were waiting for a certain Rocma Bato, the name written at the

back of the picture she received in Jalal Restaurant in Manila. She showed the photo to Mamantak who stated that she knew Bato. Mamantak then told Teresa that she would ask a cousin of Bato if the latter was already in Kapatagan. Mamantak turned to Taurak, supposedly the cousin of Bato. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox and informed them that she had Christopher. Taurak asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but they refused. Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave Mamantak with them while she fetched Christopher. Several hours later, in the afternoon of the same day, Taurak returned and told Teresa that Christopher was in a nearby ice plant. She asked Teresa to go with her but the latter insisted on their agreement that the boy be handed over at the carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after several minutes with Christopher. Upon seeing her son, Teresa cried and embraced him. However, the child was unmoved. He no longer recognized nor understood her for he could only speak in the Muslim dialect. When asked who he was,

the boy gave a Muslim name with “Taurak” as surname Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and demanded the ransom money. She answered that her niece had it and pointed to PO3 Palafox. Thereafter, Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded a jeepney which was parked outside, under Taurak’s watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox handed the ransom money to Mamantak. At this juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and the PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested Mamantak and Taurak. Christopher relearned Tagalog after a month and gradually began to forget the incident. On the other hand, Teresa almost lost her sanity. At the time Christopher was kidnapped, she was pregnant with her third child. The child, born very sickly, eventually

died. The sisters Mamantak and Taurak were charged with kidnapping for ransom.

Issue:

Whether the two accused are guilty of violating the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 7659?

Held:

After evaluating the respective evidence of the parties, the trial court rendered a decision on November 30, 2004 finding Taurak and Mamantak guilty as charged. Both accused LIKAD SARAPIDA TAURAK and accused RAGA SARAPIDA [MAMANTAK] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as amended by RA No. 7659 and both are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Both accused are hereby jointly and severally ordered to pay the Christopher Basario represented by the mother, [Ma.] Teresa Basario the amount of PHP50,000.00 as compensatory damages and PHP50,000.00 as moral damages. With costs against the accused.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the

intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time.[11] And liberty is not limited

to mere physical restraint but embraces one’s right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such restraints necessary for the common welfare. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity. No specific form of

ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom. The amount of and purpose for the ransom is immaterial.

Taurak and Mamantak appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal is DENIED. In a decision dated March 31, 2006, the appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in not considering the demand for P30,000 as a demand for ransom. Such circumstance required the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of Taurak and Mamantak with modification amending the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 as amended by Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the appellate court certified the case to this Court and accordingly ordered the elevation of the records.

Safeguard Security Agency, Inc vs TangcoG.R. No.165732December 14, 2006

Facts:

On November 3, 1997, at about 2:50 p.m., Evangeline Tangco (Evangeline) went to Ecology Bank, Katipunan Branch, Quezon City, to renew her time deposit per advise of the bank's cashier as she would sign a specimen card. Evangeline, a duly licensed firearm holder with corresponding permit to carry the same outside her residence, approached security guard Pajarillo, who was stationed outside the bank, and pulled out her firearm from her bag to deposit the same for

safekeeping. Suddenly, Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service shotgun hitting her in the abdomen instantly causing her death. 

Lauro Tangco, Evangeline's husband, together with his six minor children (respondents) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, a criminal case of Homicide against Pajarillo, docketed as Criminal Case No. 0-97-73806 and assigned to Branch 78. Respondents reserved their right to file a separate civil action in the said criminal case. The RTC of Quezon City subsequently convicted Pajarillo of Homicide in its Decision dated January 19, 2000. On appeal to the CA, the RTC decision was affirmed with modification as to the penalty in a Decision dated July 31, 2000. Entry of Judgment was made on August 25, 2001. 

Meanwhile, on January 14, 1998, respondents filed with RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, a complaint for damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its security guard. Respondents prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. 

In their Answer, petitioners denied the material allegations in the complaint and alleged that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo; that Evangeline's death was not due to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter acted only in self-defense. Petitioners set up a compulsory

counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees. 

Issues:

(a) Whether respondent can file civil liability ex delito under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code? 

(b) Whether independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code?

(c) Whether the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes?

Held:

The RTC found respondents to be entitled to damages. It rejected Pajarillo's claim that he merely acted in self-defense. It gave no credence to Pajarillo's bare claim that Evangeline was seen roaming around the area prior to the shooting incident since Pajarillo had not made such report to the head office and the police authorities. The RTC further ruled that being the guard on duty, the situation demanded that he should have exercised proper

prudence and necessary care by asking Evangeline for him to ascertain the matter instead of shooting her instantly; that Pajarillo had already been convicted of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 0-97-73806; and that he also failed to proffer proof negating liability in the instant case. The RTC also found Safeguard as employer of Pajarillo to be jointly and severally liable with Pajarillo. It ruled that while it may be conceded that Safeguard had perhaps exercised care in the selection of its employees, particularly of Pajarillo, there was no sufficient evidence to show that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employee; that Safeguard's evidence simply showed that it required its guards to attend trainings and seminars which is not the supervision contemplated under the law; that supervision includes not only the issuance of regulations and instructions designed for the protection of persons and property, for the guidance of their servants and employees, but also the duty to see to it that such regulations and instructions are faithfully complied with. 

In finding that Safeguard is only subsidiarily liable, the CA held that the applicable provisions are not Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, on quasi-delicts, but the provisions on civil liability arising from felonies under the Revised Penal Code; that since Pajarillo had been found guilty of Homicide in a final and executory judgment and is said to be serving

sentence in Muntinlupa, he must be adjudged civilly liable under the provisions of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code since the civil liability recoverable in the criminal action is one solely dependent upon conviction, because said liability arises from the offense charged and no other; that this is also the civil liability that is deemed extinguished with the extinction of the penal liability with a pronouncement that the fact from which the civil action might proceed does not exist; that unlike in civil liability arising from quasi-delict, the defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the employment and supervision of employees is inapplicable and irrelevant in civil liabilities based on crimes or ex-delicto; that Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the liability of an employer for the civil liability of their employees is only subsidiary, not joint or solidary. 

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated July 16, 2004 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the civil liability of petitioner Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. is SOLIDARY and PRIMARY under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.