R U L E 69

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) Rule 111

Prosecution of Civil Cases

Rule 111

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL CASES

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)

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 100 of the RPC, Every 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 103. You already knew 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 SC said that whether he likes it or not, he is covered. It 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 SC, whether he likes 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 NOT deemed instituted with the criminal action?

A: The civil action is NOT deemed instituted with the criminal action:

1. when the offended party has waived the civil aspect of the case;

2. when the offended party has reserved his right to file a separate civil action; or

3. when the civil action was filed or instituted ahead of the criminal action.

4. when the crime is one to which no civil liability attaches. (People vs. Maceda, 73 Phil. 679)

5. 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. (Yakult Phils. vs. CA, 190 SCRA 357);

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. Before the trial, kailangan mag-reserve na siya. Otherwise the court will consider the civil aspect deemed instituted.

YAKULT PHILS. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

190 SCRA 357 (1990)

FACTS: In a criminal case, the offended party did not make a reservation but there is still no trial. However, without making 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: Is there a proper filing of the civil action without making a reservation? Was the civil action filed ahead of the criminal case?

HELD: NO. However, there is no question 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. In effect, there was an automatic reservation although normally, reservation is done before the filing of the criminal case. Ito naman, filing before he informed the court.

Q: Has 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: Every 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. (People vs. Rodriguez, July 29, 1959; Roa vs. dela Cruz, Feb. 13, 1960)

So it is possible for the information to recite the claim for civil liability or hindi na kailangan. The only difference is: if the information mentions the claim of the civil liability, the offended party is required to pay the docket fee provided the docket fee is only for any claims for moral, exemplary and nominal damages. There is no docket fee for actual damages.

Q: Suppose there was no mention of any claim for moral or exemplary damages, can he still prove them during the trial? YES. But he did not pay docket fee?

A: Never mind, once it is awarded, there is now a lien in the judgment for the payment of the docket fee.

So there is difference in the rule in docket fee in civil and criminal cases. Remember the case of Sun Insurance in civil procedure? If the docket fee was not mentioned in the complaint in the civil case they are deemed waived. You must pay the docket 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. In 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.

So in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or exemplary damages is mentioned in the information, you must pay the docket fee upon filing of the information. But whether alleged in the information or not, you can claim for actual damages and there is no docket fee for actual damages except in cases under BP 22. That is the exception which is now embodied in Section 1 paragraph [b] which was take from SC circular 57-97 there is no payment of docket fee for actual damages except in criminal cases for violation of BP 22 because paragraph [b] says:

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.

Now, take note of the ruling in the case of Cabaero vs. Cantos mentioned in civil procedure which is now incorporated in the last paragraph of Section 1, paragraph [a]:

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.

Thats the Cabaero case which reversed Javier vs. IAC, (171 SCRA 376) and Shaffer vs. RTC, (167 SCRA 376).

SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (n)

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a)

Lets go to Section 2. Suppose the offended party made a reservation to institute a civil action and a criminal case is filed, he cannot file the civil action thats the rule. He 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. You allowed the filing of the civil and criminal cases together. Same evidence, same incident. In 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 absurd!

So the best thing is unahin muna ang criminal case because anyway if there is an acquittal 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 acquitted by reason of an exempting circumstance and yet it does not exempt him from civil liability in another civil action.

Take note that what is suspended is the civil action arising from the criminal act. (opening paragraph of Section 2; Article 1157, New Civil Code)

Q: What happens if na-una na-file yung civil action?

A: According to Section 2, 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.

Q: Is this prejudicial to the offended party?

A: There is a way out according to Section 2. 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 Section 2.

Q: Is this consolidation mandatory?

A: NO. It 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 make a reservation therefore requires a mandatory consolidation?

A: The following are the instances:

1. Violations of BP 22. (Paragraph b, Section 1, Rule 111);

2. Libel under Article 360, RPC;

3. Mandatory consolidation under the Sandiganbayan law. For example, a criminal case is supposed to be tried by the SB 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 SB.

Q: What happens if the filing of the civil action will have to wait for the outcome of the criminal case, baka nag-prescribed na yung civil action?

A: Read 3rd paragraph of Section 2:

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (n)

Ayun! The running of the prescriptive period shall be suspended. This was the doctrine in the case of People vs. Bayotas.

There is something new in the 2nd 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. Now read this part, third paragraph of Section 2:

x x x In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. x x x

What is new here is the phrase without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case I was wondering, there is something wrong here. I believe there is a typographical error here. Di ba the witnesses of the offended party in the civil case are also the witnesses of the prosecution in the criminal case? I was wondering why will the fiscal cross-examine his witnesses? I think the phrase really means the witnesses presented by the accused.Lets go to some decided cases.

CAOS vs. PERALTA

115 SCRA 843

FACTS: The case of Caos was decided before the 1985 Rules. Here, there was reservation. There were two (2) cases arising out of the same incident. At that time, there was still no specific rule on consolidation. Judge Peralta ordered the consolidation of the criminal and civil cases and that was questioned.

ISSUE: Was the consolidation proper? If so, how do you reconcile these cases because the degree of proof in the criminal case is not the same in the civil case?

HELD: The consolidation was proper under Rule 31 because there is a common question of fact and law. They can be consolidated but for purposes of decision, the court will now apply two (2) different criteria: Proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case and preponderance of evidence in the civil case. So there is no incompatibility.

Now, here comes the 1985 Rules on consolidation and one of the first cases which reached the SC involving the new Rules was the case of Naguiat.

NAGUIAT vs. IAC

164 SCRA 505

FACTS: Naguiat filed a case against a subdivision development corporation where he bought a lot in installment basis. Under the subdivision law kapag bayad na, you issue the title. But according to Naguiat, bayad na pero hindi binigay yung title. So 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 PD 957. Now, he filed a motion to consolidate under Rule 111.

ISSUE: Is the motion to consolidate proper?

HELD: NO. 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. In other words, damages ex delicto. But 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. [So if the civil case arose from a contract, it cannot be consolidated with the criminal case under Rule 111.]

But because it cannot be denied that it would be better if we try them together because we are talking of the same incident failure to deliver the title why not consolidate the two cases under Rule 31, citing the case of Caos vs. Peralta. In that case, the only ground was there was a common question of fact and law so they should be consolidated under Rule 31 and NOT Rule 111.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a) (Last paragraph, Section 2, Rule 111)

Yan! If the accused is acquitted, it will not bar the offended party from filing a civil action because the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action because for all you know in the civil case the accused may be found liable.

It is now emphasized in the new rules however, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. This means that if the accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, there could still be civil liability arising from the crime or when the accused is acquitted based on an exempting circumstance. But when the accused is acquitted on the ground that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist, that is the end of the civil liability arising from a crime.

Q: However, if I file an action based on quasi-delict, can it prosper?

A: YES, because it is now established that the action based on delict is extinguished but not on quasi-delict, a contract, or other sources of obligation. This is the ruling in the case of Bayotas in criminal law that, for example, once the accused dies, the civil liability arising from crime is already extinguished 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 emphasized in the 1998 case of

SALAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

284 SCRA 493, January 22, 1998

HELD: The civil liability referred to in this Rule is the civil liability arising from crime (ex delicto). It is not the civil liability for quasi-delict which is allowed to be brought separately and independently of the criminal action by Art. 33 of the Civil Code. The civil liability based on such cause of action is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Indeed, 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 acquitted.

So remember ha, in the case of Salao the offended party has no intervention in the criminal case. He does not know how the public prosecutor handled the case, baka ang testigo kulang kaya na-acquit. So paano ako (offended party)? I will file my own civil case and maybe I will use quasi-delict as the basis and no longer the delict.

These are the complicated portion of this rule. As a matter of fact, there are queer cases decided by the SC even before the new rules like the 1987 case of

RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTION vs. IAC

November 27, 1987

FACTS: A driver of the construction company collided with a car, killing the owner. What was filed was a criminal case against the driver. No reservation was made. Therefore the civil liability arising from the crime is already instituted. The driver was convicted. On appeal, the driver died.

ISSUE: What will happen to the civil liability arising from the crime? Can you enforce it against the employer based on Article 103, RPC on subsidiary liability?

HELD: NO, 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. But the trouble is he died. So you cannot enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer.

However, if this was quasi-delict, you can file a direct action against he employer because in quasi-delict, the liability of the employer is primary, not subsidiary. The SC treated the case as an action for quasi-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 SC, we will put it back and now you will cross-examine them (Dean I: Anong klaseng procedure ito?!). This is what the SC said:

The death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal or before the judgment of conviction became final and executory extinguished his criminal liability but not his civil liability should the liability or obligation arise not from a crime but from a quasi-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.

Inasmuch as the employer was not a party in the criminal case, and to grant him his day in court for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on their testimonies on the driver's 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 quash the subsidiary writ of execution must be reopened precisely for the purpose adverted to hereinabove.

This is the only instance I knew that the criminal case against a driver ended up as a case for quasi-delict against the employer. In other words, sh-in-ort-cut-short-cut ng SC yung procedure eh!

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (3a)

Lets go back to basic rules.

Q: Which takes precedence when there is reservation, the criminal or the civil action?

A: The criminal action takes precedence. The filing of the criminal suspends the filing of the civil action. If the civil action is filed, the civil action is deemed suspended unless there would be consolidation.

Now, the rule about the filing of the criminal action will suspend the filing of the civil action, and the rule about the subsequent filing of the criminal action will suspend the trial of the civil case, however, DOES NOT apply if the civil action is classified as an independent civil action under Section 3. This is another important provision.

Q: What are the independent civil actions under the law?

A: They are those covered by Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the New Civil Code.

Take note that you have to know what is Article 32, 33, 34, 2176. It is not enough that you memorize the articles. What is Article 32 all about? What kind of civil action is referred thereto? Or what is the civil action referred to in Article 34? I think nandito yung when the civil action is based on a violation of a constitutional right. Article 33 is the most famous when the civil action is defamation, fraud and physical injuries.

Here (Section 3), 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. Unlike when the civil action is not classified as independent, where it is governed by Section 2, it will be suspended in the meantime. That is the important point to remember in this rule.

COJUANGCO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

203 SCRA 629

FACTS: In this case, there was an independent civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from defamation filed by Cojuangco against a media company. So there were two (2) cases a criminal action for libel under the RPC and a civil case for damages arising from defamation under Article 33 of the Civil Code. The question is: can the two cases be consolidated under Section 2? because one argument is you only consolidate the civil action if it is not independent action. But anyway, independent man ito why will consolidate?

ISSUE: May a civil action for damages arising from defamation (independent civil action) and the criminal case for libel be consolidated?

HELD: YES, they can be consolidated under Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, citing again the case of Caos vs. Peralta, because there is a common question of law and fact.

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. The case Caos had removed any doubt on this point. [So even if we disregard Rule 111 Section 2, it can be consolidated under Rule 31]

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 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.

In other words, if there is a second reason why consolidation should be allowed, that reason is Article 360 of the RPC on libel. While there maybe 2 separate actions in libel damages and criminal case Article 360 orders the consolidation of the two. That is mandated under Article 360.

The next question is: Suppose I will file an independent civil action, do I have to make a reservation? The civil action specified is an independent one. Take note that under Section 1, when you file a criminal case without making a reservation, the civil action is already deemed instituted unless you make a reservation.

There were some confusions on that point because in the old cases of GARCIA VS. FLORIDO (52 SCRA), ABELLANA VS. MARABE (57 SCRA), the SC implied that when the civil action is independent, there is no need to make a reservation. That is an implication because it is independent why should its filing be dependent on reservation?

However, the 1985 Rules on criminal procedure made reservation mandatory even in independent civil actions. Section 3 of the 1985 Rules says, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently. So in the instructive case of MANIAGO VS. CA, (253 SCRA 674) as well as the case of SAN ILDEFONSO VS. CA, (289 SCRA 568), the SC ruled that there is still a need, whether a civil action is independent or not, to make a reservation, otherwise the civil action is deemed instituted.

NOW, you will notice in Section 3 of the new rules, that phrase which has been reserved is deleted. So based on the language of the new rules, babalik na naman tayo sa FLORIDO and MARABE ruling, that an independent civil action NEED NOT BE RESERVED. Therefore, the ruling in the MANIAGO and SAN ILDEFONSO cases is deemed abandoned by the SC.

SEC. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (n)

Section 4 is entirely new. The first sentence is enunciated in the case of Bayotas the death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict the civil liability arising from the crime is deemed extinguished which you have taken up already in criminal law. However, the independent civil action instituted under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources meaning, another source other than the delict may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution as the case may be.

Balik na naman tayo sa civil procedure nito. The action survives there will be substitution. This is actually a repetition of civil procedure the heirs of the accused maybe substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian That is a repetition of Rule 3, about substitution of a party. But the civil action here refers to a civil action where the source of a claim is not a crime, wala na eh, extinguished na kaya it could be a contract or a quasi-delict.

Q: On the third paragraph, assuming there is a judgment. How will you enforce it? By execution?

A: NO. You must file it as a claim against he estate. As a rule, there is no execution. All the creditors mush share equally with the assets. That is Special Proceedings: what claims must be filed against the estate of the deceased?

Q: Last paragraph. In case before arraignment, namatay wala na! the criminal liability is extinguished. What happens now to any possible civil action which the offended party may file?

A: He can file it against the estate of the deceased but the assumption is, it is based on quasi-delict or any other sources of obligation other than the crime.

SEC. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. 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 for the same act or omission subject of the civil action. (4a)

Section 5 is the exact opposite of Section 2 because the last paragraph of Section 2 says the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. Itong Section 5 naman, baliktad! the extinction of civil action. Is the criminal action also extinguished? NO. 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.

Now, what is new here is the last clause for the same act or omission subject of the civil action because for all you know, the evidence submitted in civil case might be incomplete and the government has better evidence in the criminal action.

SEC 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (6a)

SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (5a)

The concept of prejudicial question is the exact opposite of Section 2 because in Section 2, unless independent civil action, the filing of the criminal action will cause the suspension of the civil action. Ito naman, baliktad the filing of the civil case will suspend the criminal case that is, if there is a prejudicial question involved in the civil case.

Q: What is a prejudicial question?

A: A prejudicial question 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. (Mendiola vs. Macadaeg, February 27, 1961)

So 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 kaya paunahin natin ang civil.

Q: How do you determine whether a question is prejudicial?

A: The elements of a prejudicial question are found in Section 7:

1. the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and2. 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?

A: It will be suspended. The accused will have to file a motion for the suspension of the proceeding.

For example, Rod is accused of bigamy for marrying twice. However, there is a civil case also pending where the issue is whether his first marriage is valid or not. Kung valid yon, patay ka! bigamy! Kung void naman yun, there is no bigamy.

PEOPLE vs. ARAGON

94 Phil. 357

FACTS: Pches contracted a second marriage with Cholo, a married man. The latter subsequently married Thea, the second girl. Cholo 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 Cholo. And, even if his first marriage is not valid, sabi niya (Thea), yung akin ay voidable pa rin because my consent was secured through force or intimidation.

Sabi naman ni Cholo, kung ganun, it is prejudicial. We will have to wait for the result of that case filed by the second wife (Thea) whether really I used force or intimidation to get her consent. So the case of bigamy should not be tried.

HELD: Cholo is wrong because it was him, who is accused of bigamy, who employed the force. Cholo cannot use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on the criminal act. Ikaw and nag-gawa ng force tapos you use the force to suspend the criminal case? Di puwede yan! There is something wrong in that situation.

But 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 ako. Ayoko man ba! So she filed an action to declare the second marriage defective on the ground of vitiated consent. Ayan! Prejudicial yan because she is the victim [of force and intimidation]. Really, if her second marriage was obtained without her consent, how can she be guilty of bigamy? Yan! Pwede yan!

CASE: (decided by Court of Appeals) A criminal case was filed against Kenneth for forcible abduction with rape. While the criminal case was pending, there was a supposed marriage between him and his victim (Hannah) para ma-extinguish ang criminal liability ni Kenneth. But Hannah 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 Hannah be considered as prejudicial question to determine whether the forcible abduction case will proceed to the SC?

RULING: According to the CA, YES because of this argument: suppose it is proven that the marriage between the Kenneth and the Hannah is null and void, therefore, the criminal liability of Kenneth for forcible abduction with rape cannot be extinguished because the marriage is a false one. However, if it turned out that the marriage is really valid, then the criminal case for abduction will definitely be extinguished.

CASE: This one is squatting. Andr was accused under the anti-squatting law for occupying the property of Eumir. In another civil case, the issue is ownership of the same property between Andr and Eumir. They are quarreling as to who is really the owner. Here, kailangan muna matulog ang criminal case. Depende yan kasi kung sinong manalo sa civil case. How can you be a squatter if it turns out that you are the owner of property. So it is considered as prejudicial question.

The last point to consider here:

Q: Can you raise a prejudicial question as a ground to suspend the preliminary investigation before the fiscals office? Or, does the issue of prejudicial question only applicable when the case reaches the court?

A: Prejudicial question can be raised as a ground to suspend a preliminary investigation. Section 6 says, a petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.

Of course, when the criminal action has been filed in court, the petition for suspension must be filed in the same criminal action.

The first case where the SC said that prejudicial question can be raised even in the preliminary investigation was first laid down in the 1940 case of DE LEON VS. MABANAG (72 Phil. 202).

However in 1962, the SC had a change of mind in the case of DASALLA VS. CITY ATTORNEY, (5 SCRA 193) where the SC said, the suspension on the ground of prejudicial question only applies when the case is already in court but not where the case is still under preliminary investigation. The ruling in Mabanag is abandoned. The Dasalla ruling was reiterated in the case of FALGUI VS. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PAMPANGA, 62 SCRA 462.

However, when the 1985 rules were enacted, you will notice in Section 6 that the issue of prejudicial question may be raised in the office of the prosecutor or the judge conducting the preliminary investigation. That means the resurrection of the Mabanag ruling in 1940 and the abandonment of the subsequent cases of Dasalla and Falgui, Jr. So binalik nila ang Mabanag.

SPACE-FILLER #1:

A golfer was losing very badly in his club championship when he hit his ball into the rough. Bending down to retrieve the ball, he came face to face with a leprechaun.

Would you like some help with your game? he asked.

Yes, please, replied the man excitedly.

OK, said the leprechaun. Theres just one condition. Every time you call upon me for assistance, you will lose one year of your sex life. The player agreed and won the championship by two strokes.

Getting into his car to go home, the golfer found the leprechaun sitting on the dashboard with a notebook and pencil. I assisted you ten times during the game, the leprechaun reminded him. You know the rules. Now, whats your name?

Father OFlattery, replied the golfer.

Source: Readers Digest, January 20011044Lakas Atenista

Ateneo de Davao University College of Law