1. HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. vs.

ASIA Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was

DYNAMIC ELECTRIX CORP. and COURT OF APPEALS. denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated
G.R. No. 163597. July 29, 2005 May 14, 2004.5
PUNO, J.:
Hence, this petition raising the following arguments:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated October 8, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 71467 1. There is no identity of interests, causes of action,
and its resolution dated May 14, 2004. The assailed and reliefs in Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 before
decision and resolution reversed the order dated the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City
December 10, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of and the criminal complaints for violation of BP
Mandaluyong City, Branch 210 in Civil Case No. MC 01- Blg. 22 filed against Gil Santillan and Juanito
1493 denying the motion to dismiss filed by herein Pamatmat before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
respondent, Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation. Pasig City docketed as I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and
I.S. No. 00-01-00300.
On April 4, 2001, petitioner Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing 2. Petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping.
Corporation filed before the Regional Trial Court of 3. Petitioner did not violate Section 1(b) of Rule 111
Mandaluyong City a complaint for recovery of sum of of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when
money against respondent Asia Dynamic Electrix it filed the complaint in Civil Case No. MC 01-
Corporation. The complaint alleged that respondent 1493.6
purchased from petitioner various electrical conduits and
fittings amounting ₱1,622,467.14. Respondent issued The petition is unmeritorious.
several checks in favor of petitioner as payment. The
checks, however, were dishonored by the drawee bank
It appears that prior to the filing of the case for recovery
on the ground of insufficient funds/account closed. The
of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of
complaint further alleged that respondent failed to pay
Mandaluyong City, petitioner had already filed separate
despite demand. It prayed that respondent be ordered
criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22 against the
to pay the amount of purchase, plus interest and
officers of respondent corporation, Gil Santillan and
attorney’s fees.1
Juanito Pamatmat. They were docketed as I.S. No. 00-01-
003047 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300,8 respectively, and were
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the both pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig
following grounds: (1) the civil action was deemed City. These cases involve the same checks which are the
included in the criminal actions for violation of Batas subjects of Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 before the
Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) previously filed by petitioner Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City.
against the officers of respondent corporation; (2)
Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that
Procedure prohibits the filing of a separate civil action in
upon filing of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22, the
B.P. 22 cases; and (3) respondent was guilty of forum
civil action for the recovery of the amount of the checks
shopping and unjust enrichment.2
was also impliedly instituted under Section 1(b) of Rule
111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Under the
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in its order present revised Rules, the criminal action for violation of
dated December 10, 2001. It ruled that since the act B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
complained of arose from the alleged non-payment of civil action. The reservation to file a separate civil action is
the petitioner of its contractual debt, and not the no longer needed.9 The Rules provide:
issuance of checks with insufficient funds, in accordance
with Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil action could
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. —
proceed independently of the criminal actions. It said
that Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure does not apply to the obligation in (a) x x x
this case, it being ex-contractu and not ex-delicto.3
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa
Respondent questioned said order before the Court of Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
Appeals in a petition for certiorari. The appellate court, in civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
its decision dated October 8, 2003, reversed the order of separately shall be allowed.
the trial court. It held that the civil actions deemed
instituted with the filing of the criminal cases for violation Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions,
of B.P. 22 and Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 are of the same the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based
nature, i.e., for sum of money between the same parties on the amount of the check involved, which shall be
for the same transaction. Considering that the courts considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the
where the two criminal cases were pending acquired complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
jurisdiction over the civil actions, which were deemed moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
instituted therein, the respondent court could no longer offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on
acquire jurisdiction over the same case.4 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 being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity,
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two
judgment. cases, is such that any judgment that may be rendered in
the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial would amount to res judicata in the other.13
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated
with the criminal action upon application with the court We reject petitioner’s assertion that there is no identity of
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the parties and causes of action between the civil case, Civil
trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with Case No. MC 01-1493, and the criminal cases, I.S. No. 00-
section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil 01-00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300.
and criminal actions.
First, the parties in Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 represent
The foregoing rule was adopted from Circular No. 57-97 the same interests as the parties in I.S. No. 00-01-00304
of this Court. It specifically states that the criminal action and I.S. No. 00-01-00300. I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and I.S. No.
for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the 00-01-00300 were filed against the officers of respondent
corresponding civil action. It also requires the corporation who signed the checks as agents thereof.
complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the The records indicate that the checks were in fact drawn
amount of the check involved. Generally, no filing fees in the account of respondent corporation. It has not
are required for criminal cases, but because of the been alleged in the suit that said officers acted beyond
inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of their authority in signing the checks, hence, their acts
B.P. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees may also be binding on respondent corporation,
upon the filing of the complaint. This rule was enacted to depending on the outcome of the proceedings.
help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22
cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Second, Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 and I.S. No. 00-01-
Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal 00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300 seek to obtain the same
cases for actual damages, the payee uses the relief. With the implied institution of the civil liability in the
intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his criminal actions before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial Pasig City, the two actions are merged into one
court is not even informed thereof.10 The inclusion of the composite proceeding, with the criminal action
civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal
lower the number of cases filed before the courts for action is to punish the offender to deter him and others
collection based on dishonored checks. It is also from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate
expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. him from society, reform or rehabilitate him or, in general,
Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal to maintain social order. The purpose, meanwhile, of the
and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and civil action is for the restitution, reparation or
tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by indemnification of the private offended party for the
the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual
action. The Rules even prohibit the reservation of a or felonious act of the accused.14 Hence, the relief sought
separate civil action, which means that one can no in the civil aspect of I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and I.S. No. 00-
longer file a separate civil case after the criminal 01-00300 is the same as that sought in Civil Case No. MC
complaint is filed in court. The only instance when 01-1493, that is, the recovery of the amount of the
separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil checks, which, according to petitioner, represents the
action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the amount to be paid by respondent for its purchases. To
Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and allow petitioner to proceed with Civil Case No. MC 01-
criminal cases. We have previously observed that a 1493 despite the filing of I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and I.S. No.
separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the 00-01-00300 might result to a double payment of its claim.
amount of the dishonored checks would only prove to be
costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties
Petitioner contends that there is no identity of causes of
and would further delay the final disposition of the case.
action in the civil and criminal cases as the amount
This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where
claimed in Civil Case No. MC 01-1493 is greater than the
petitioners’ rights may be fully adjudicated in the
total amount of the checks involved in I.S. No. 00-01-
proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate
00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300. We are not persuaded.
action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted.11 In
We find that the inclusion of additional checks in Civil
view of this special rule governing actions for violation of
Case No. MC 01-1493 is an attempt to circumvent the
B.P. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code 12 cited by the trial
rule against forum shopping, to make it appear that the
court will not apply to the case at bar.
objects of the civil and criminal proceedings are
different. It is clear from the records that the checks
The pendency of the civil action before the court trying involved in I.S. No. 00-01-0030415and I.S. No. 00-01-
the criminal case bars the filing of another civil action in 0030016 are the same checks cited by petitioner in Civil
another court on the ground of litis pendentia. The Case No. MC 01-1493.17 The Court will certainly not allow
elements of litis pendentia as a ground for dismissal of an petitioner to recover a sum of money twice based on the
action are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties same set of checks. Neither will the Court allow it to
who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) proceed with two actions based on the same set of
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief checks to increase its chances of obtaining a favorable
ruling. Such runs counter to the Court’s policy against
forum shopping which is a deplorable practice of litigants
in resorting to two different fora for the purpose of
obtaining the same relief to increase his chances of
obtaining a favorable judgment.18 It is a practice that
ridicules the judicial process, plays havoc with the rules
on orderly procedure, and is vexatious and unfair to the
other parties of the case.19

Thus, we find that the Court of Appeals committed no

reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
 2. G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 that this case and the civil case be jointly tried. We shall
be shooting two birds with a single shot.
ADELA J. CAÑOS, petitioner,
vs. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the order, but the
HON. E.L. PERALTA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance same was denied.
of Davao del Sur and ROLANDO APAS, respondents.
Hence, this petition.
Hermenegildo Cabreras for petitioner.
Petitioner contends that after the institution of Criminal
Martin V. Delgra, Jr. for respondents. Case No. 326, the proceedings in Civil Case No. 558
should be suspended until final judgment in the criminal
ESCOLIN, J. action has been rendered. Petitioner relies on Section 3,
Petition to annul and set aside the order of the pars. [a] and [b], Rule III of the Rules of Court, which we
respondent Judge E.L. Peralta, presiding judge of the quote: 1äwphï1.ñët
Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, ordering the [a] Criminal and civil actions arising from the same
consolidation and joint trial of Criminal Case No. 326 and offense may be instituted separately, but after the
Civil Case No. 558. criminal action has been commenced the civil action
The facts pertinent to this case are as follows: On can not be instituted until final judgment has been
December 23, 1971, petitioner Adela C. Caños was rendered in the criminal action;
charged in the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur [b] After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil
with violation of Section 3[a] of Rep. Act No. 602, as action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted,
amended, otherwise known as the Minimum Wage Law, and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it
for alleged non-payment of the minimum wage to her may be found, until final judgment in the criminal
employee, respondent Rolando Apas. The case was proceedings has been rendered;
docketed as Criminal Case No. 326.
The argument, fails to consider the provisions of Article 31
On August 4, 1972, respondent Apas instituted an action of the Civil Code. Civil Case No. 558 is a separate and
against petitioner for collection of differential, overtime distinct action from Criminal Case No. 326. The former is
and termination pay, plus damages, docketed as Civil based upon a contract of services entered into by the
Case No. 558 of the same court. The complaint averred parties, not upon the civil liability arising from the offense
that respondent Apas had been employed by petitioner charged in Criminal Case No. 326, i.e., non-payment of
as cashier in her gasoline station since August 1965 up the minimum wage, punishable under Section 3 (a) of
until he was illegally dismissed on January 15, 1971; that Rep. Act 602, as amended, in relation to Section 15 (a) of
during his employment, he was not paid the minimum the same Act. 2 Being essentially an action for
wage or the overtime pay prescribed by law, neither was enforcement of an obligation ex-contractu the civil case
he given termination pay after his dismissal. Respondent, can proceed independently of the latter, in accordance
however, did not pray for reinstatement. with Article 31 of the Civil Code: 1äwphï1.ñët
After joinder of issues, the provincial fiscal of Davao del Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation
Sur and respondent Apas filed a "motion for consolidated not arising from the act or omission complained of as a
trial" of the criminal and civil cases, alleging in support felony, such civil action may proceed independently of
thereof – 1äwphï1.ñët the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
That the defendant in. each of the two cases is one and the latter.
the same person; that the complaining witness in the But did respondent judge abuse his discretion in ordering
criminal case is also the plaintiff in the civil case; that the the consolidation and joint trial of the criminal and civil
nature of the issues, at least, the factual issues, in both cases? A court may order several actions pending before
cases are almost Identical; and that the evidence in both it to be tried together where they arise from the same
cases would virtually be the same, so that a conso- act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues,
lidated trial of both cases would be conducive to the and depend largely or substantially on the same
early termination of the two cases and would greatly evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over
enhance the convenience of the parties and the speedy the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not
administration of justice. 1 give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the
Acting on the motion, respondent judge issued the substantial rights of any of the parties. 3 Consolidation of
challenged order, directing the joint trial of the two actions is expressly authorized under Section 1, Rule 31 of
cases, in this wise: 1äwphï1.ñët the Rules of Court: 1äwphï1.ñët

Since Rolando Apas, complainant, is not insisting on the Section 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a
trial of this case ahead of his civil case against the common question of law or fact are pending before the
accused, for practical purpose, that is, to save time and court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
effort of the parties and the court, the court is of the view matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay.

The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid

multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and
abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to
simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment
of justice with the least expense and vexation to the
parties litigants. 4

Consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound

discretion of the court, and its action in consolidating will
not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of
discretion. In the instant case, respondent judge did not
abuse his discretion in ordering the joint trial of the two
cases. There is no showing that such joint trial would
prejudice any substantial right of petitioner. Neither does
the latter question the court's jurisdiction to try and
decide the two cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed with costs

against petitioner. The lower court is directed to proceed
with the joint trial of the two cases without unnecessary
delay.

SO ORDERED.
 3. ANITA CHENG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES WILLIAM SY and Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration8 which the
TESSIE SY, Respondents. court denied in its Order9 dated June 5, 2006. Hence, this
petition, raising the sole legal issue'
G.R. NO. 174238
Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of
July 7, 2009 Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97
NACHURA, J.: on the Rules and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution
of criminal cases under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the
This is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of present case where the nature of the order dismissing the
the Rules of Court of the Order dated January 2, 20062 of cases for bouncing checks against the respondents was
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Manila in Civil [based] on the failure of the prosecution to identify both
Case No. 05-112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses the accused (respondents herein)?10
William Sy and Tessie Sy.
Essentially, petitioner argues that since the BP Blg. 22
The antecedents are as follows' cases were filed on January 20, 1999, the 2000 Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure promulgated on December
Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases before 1, 2000 should not apply, as it must be given only
the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent spouses prospective application. She further contends that that
William and Tessie Sy (Criminal Case No. 98-969952 her case falls within the following exceptions to the rule
against Tessie Sy and Criminal Case No. 98-969953 against that the civil action correspondent to the criminal action
William Sy) for issuing to her Philippine Bank of Commerce is deemed instituted with the latter'
(PBC) Check Nos. 171762 and 71860 for P300,000.00
each, in payment of their loan, both of which were (1) additional evidence as to the identities of the
dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn accused is necessary for the resolution of the civil aspect
against a closed account. of the case;

Meanwhile, based on the same facts, petitioner, on (2) a separate complaint would be just as efficacious as
January 20, 1999, filed against respondents two (2) cases or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial
for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 22 before court where the criminal action was decided for further
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 25, Manila hearings on the civil aspect of the case;
(Criminal Case Nos. 341458-59).
(3) the trial court failed to make any pronouncement as
On March 16, 2004, the RTC, Branch 7, Manila dismissed to the civil liability of the accused amounting to a
the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated in
the elements of the crime. The Order dismissing Criminal a separate action;
Case No. 98-969952 contained no declaration as to the
civil liability of Tessie Sy.3 On the other hand, the Order in (4) the trial court did not declare that the facts from
Criminal Case No. 98-969953 contained a statement, which the civil liability might arise did not exist;
"Hence, if there is any liability of the accused, the same is (5) the civil complaint is based on an obligation ex-
purely 'civil,' not criminal in nature."4 contractu and not ex-delicto pursuant to Article 3111 of
Later, the MeTC, Branch 25, Manila, dismissed, on the Civil Code; andcralawlibrary
demurrer, the BP Blg. 22 cases in its Order5 dated (6) the claim for civil liability for damages may be had
February 7, 2005 on account of the failure of petitioner to under Article 2912 of the Civil Code.
identify the accused respondents in open court. The
Order also did not make any pronouncement as to the Petitioner also points out that she was not assisted by any
civil liability of accused private prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 proceedings.
respondents.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
The rule is that upon the filing of the estafa and BP Blg. 22
On April 26, 2005, petitioner lodged against respondents cases against respondents, where the petitioner has not
before the RTC, Branch 18, Manila, a complaint6 for made any waiver, express reservation to litigate
collection of a sum of money with damages (Civil Case separately, or has not instituted the corresponding civil
No. 05-112452) based on the same loaned amount action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 and
of P600,000.00 covered by the two PBC checks previously damages prior to the criminal action, the civil action is
subject of the estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases. deemed instituted with the criminal cases.13

In the assailed Order7 dated January 2, 2006, the RTC, This rule applies especially with the advent of the 2000
Branch 18, Manila, dismissed the complaint for lack of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, during the
jurisdiction, ratiocinating that the civil action to collect pendency of both the estafa and the BP Blg. 22 cases,
the amount of P600,000.00 with damages was already the action to recover the civil liability was impliedly
impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 cases in light of instituted and remained pending before the respective
Section 1, paragraph (b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules trial courts. This is consonant with our ruling in Rodriguez v.
of Court. Ponferrada14 that the possible single civil liability arising
from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial
subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated
estafa case and the prosecution for violation of BP Blg. with the criminal action upon application with the court
22, simultaneously available to the complaining party, trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the
without traversing the prohibition against forum trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with
shopping.15 Prior to the judgment in either the estafa section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil
case or the BP Blg. 22 case, petitioner, as the and criminal actions.
complainant, cannot be deemed to have elected either
of the civil actions both impliedly instituted in the said Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000 Rules on
criminal proceedings to the exclusion of the other.16 Criminal Procedure should not apply because she filed
her BP Blg. 22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled that
The dismissal of the estafa cases for failure of the rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending
prosecution to prove the elements of the crime beyond at the time of their promulgation. The fact that
reasonable doubt where in Criminal Case No. 98-969952 procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
there was no pronouncement as regards the civil liability rights does not preclude their retroactive application to
of the accused and in Criminal Case No. 98-969953 pending actions. It is axiomatic that the retroactive
where the trial court declared that the liability of the application of procedural laws does not violate any right
accused was only civil in nature produced the legal of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected,
effect of a reservation by the petitioner of her right to nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason for this is
litigate separately the civil action impliedly instituted with that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor
the estafa cases, following Article 29 of the Civil Code.17 arise from, procedural laws.18

However, although this civil action could have been Indeed, under the present revised Rules, the criminal
litigated separately on account of the dismissal of the action for violation of BP Blg. 22 includes the
estafa cases on reasonable doubt, the petitioner was corresponding civil action to recover the amount of the
deemed to have also elected that such civil action be checks. It should be stressed, this policy is intended to
prosecuted together with the BP Blg. 22 cases in light of discourage the separate filing of the civil action. In fact,
the Rodriguez v. Ponferrada ruling. the Rules even prohibits the reservation of a separate civil
action, i.e., one can no longer file a separate civil case
With the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases for failure to after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only
establish the identity of the accused, the question that instance when separate proceedings are allowed is
arises is whether such dismissal would have the same when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case.
legal effect as the dismissed estafa cases. Put differently, Even then, the Rules encourages the consolidation of the
may petitioner's action to recover respondents' civil civil and criminal cases. Thus, where petitioner's rights
liability be also allowed to prosper separately after the BP may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the
Blg. 22 cases were dismissed?cralawred court trying the BP Blg. 22 cases, resort to a separate
Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted on
Criminal Procedure states' account of res judicata, for failure of petitioner to appeal
the civil aspect of the cases. In view of this special rule
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.' governing actions for violation of BP Blg. 22, Article 31 of
the Civil Code is not applicable.19
xxx
Be it remembered that rules governing procedure before
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa the courts, while not cast in stone, are for the speedy,
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding efficient, and orderly dispensation of justice and should
civil action. No reservation to file such civil action therefore be adhered to in order to attain this
separately shall be allowed. objective.20
Upon filing of the joint criminal and civil actions, the However, in applying the procedure discussed above, it
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on appears that petitioner would be left without a remedy to
the amount of the check involved, which shall be recover from respondents the P600,000.00 allegedly
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the loaned from her. This could prejudice even the
complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, petitioner's Notice of Claim involving the same amount
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filed in Special Proceedings No. 98-88390 (Petition for
offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the Voluntary Insolvency by Kolin Enterprises, William Sy and
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so Tessie Sy), which case was reportedly archived for failure
alleged but any of these damages [is] subsequently to prosecute the petition for an unreasonable length of
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the time.21 Expectedly, respondents would raise the same
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the defense that petitioner had already elected to litigate
judgment. the civil action to recover the amount of the checks
along with the BP Blg. 22 cases.
It is in this light that we find petitioner's contention that she recover the loaned amount would be tantamount to
was not assisted by a private prosecutor during the BP unjust enrichment of respondents, as they may now
Blg. 22 proceedings critical. Petitioner indirectly protests conveniently evade payment of their obligation merely
that the public prosecutor failed to protect and on account of a technicality applied against petitioner.
prosecute her cause when he failed to have her establish
the identities of the accused during the trial and when he There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly
failed to appeal the civil action deemed impliedly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense
instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases. On this ground, we of or with damages to another. This doctrine simply
agree with petitioner. means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or
enrich himself inequitably at another's expense. One
Faced with the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases, condition for invoking this principle of unjust enrichment is
petitioner's recourse pursuant to the prevailing rules of that the aggrieved party has no other recourse based on
procedure would have been to appeal the civil action to contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or any other
recover the amount loaned to respondents provision of law.26
corresponding to the bounced checks. Hence, the said
civil action may proceed requiring only a Court litigations are primarily designed to search for the
preponderance of evidence on the part of petitioner. truth, and a liberal interpretation and application of the
Her failure to appeal within the reglementary period was rules which will give the parties the fullest opportunity to
tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to adduce proof is the best way to ferret out the truth. The
recover the civil liability of respondents. However, due to dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate
the gross mistake of the prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 cases, grievances should not be barred by technicalities.27 For
we are constrained to digress from this rule. reasons of substantial justice and equity, as the
complement of the legal jurisdiction that seeks to
It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes, dispense justice where courts of law, through the
negligence and omission of their counsel.22 But this rule inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their
admits of exceptions - (1) where the counsel's mistake is judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are
so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and incompetent to do so,28we thus rule, pro hac vice, in
denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty favor of petitioner.
of gross negligence resulting in the client's deprivation of
liberty or property without due process of law.23 Tested WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 05-
against these guidelines, we hold that petitioner's lot falls 112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy and
within the exceptions. Tessie Sy is hereby ordered REINSTATED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
It is an oft-repeated exhortation to counsels to be well-
informed of existing laws and rules and to keep abreast SO ORDERED.
with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. Unless they faithfully comply with such
duty, they may not be able to discharge competently
and diligently their obligations as members of the
Bar.24 Further, lawyers in the government service are
expected to be more conscientious in the performance
of their duties as they are subject to public scrutiny. They
are not only members of the Bar but are also public
servants who owe utmost fidelity to public
service.25 Apparently, the public prosecutor neglected
to equip himself with the knowledge of the proper
procedure for BP Blg. 22 cases under the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure such that he failed to appeal the civil
action impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases, the
only remaining remedy available to petitioner to be able
to recover the money she loaned to respondents, upon
the dismissal of the criminal cases on demurrer. By this
failure, petitioner was denied her day in court to
prosecute the respondents for their obligation to pay their
loan.

Moreover, we take into consideration the trial court's

observation when it dismissed the estafa charge in
Criminal Case No. 98-969953 that if there was any liability
on the part of respondents, it was civil in nature. Hence, if
the loan be proven true, the inability of petitioner to
 4.
ANTOLIN T. NAGUIAT, petitioner, Thereafter, from December 1983 up to June 1984,
vs. petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor
HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots, last paid for,
THIRD SPECIAL CASES DIVISION, TIMOG SILANGAN but the private respondents (TSDC and Lazatin) refused
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RATION AND on the ground that the petitioner had not fully paid for
MANUEL P. LAZATIN, respondents. said three (3) lots.

G.R. No. 73836 | 164 SCRA 505 According to private respondents, sometime in January,
1983, TSDC's Board of Directors approved the petitioner's
(August 18, 1988) contemplated purchase of the aforesaid lots. To confirm
Ricardo B. Bermudo for petitioner. the agreement, respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a
letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale, which
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz Law Offices the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing his
for private respondents. conformity to said letter. The conditions for the sale of the
lots were among others, "(i) 10% down payment with a
PADILLA, J.: commitment to commence construction therefrom
Petition to review on certiorari the decision * of the (thereon) in one month's time; (ii) said construction to be
Intermediate Appellate Court, dated 9 October 1985, in finished within a period of six (6) months; and, (iii) the
AC-G.R. SP No. 06521 and AC-G.R. SP No. 06522, entitled effective price was P 70 per square meter with a rebate
"Manuel P. Lazatin and Timog Silangan Development of P 10.00 per square meter upon completion of the
Corporation versus The Honorable Lourdes K. Tayao- house in six (6) months." 4
Jaguros, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch IX But, as alleged by the private respondents, petitioner
Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, and Antolin T. Naguiat," commenced the construction of a house on one lot but
which set aside the Orders ** of the Regional Trial Court of failed to finish it within the stipulated period of six (6)
Angeles City, Branch LX, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 months. And as to the other lots, petitioner allegedly
May 1985, issued in Criminal Case No. 6727 and Civil Case failed altogether to construct houses on them. 5
No. 4224.
Hence, private respondents contend that since petitioner
Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC, for did not comply with the agreement, he was not entitled
short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business to the 10% rebate in price, and as a consequence, the
of developing and selling subdivision lots in Timog Park," previous payments made by petitioner did not amount to
located in Angeles City, with Manuel P. Lazatin (Lazatin, full payment as required for all the lots and which would
for short) as its President. have entitled petitioner to the issuance and delivery of
On 7 February 1983, petitioner Antolin T. Naguiat the certificates of title to all the lots.
purchased, on installment basis, four (4) lots from TSDC, Thereafter, on 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint
identified as Lots Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, of Block 26 of for specific performance with damages, with the
Timog Park. Each lot consists of 300 square meters. The Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX docketed
four (4) lots have a total area of 1,200 square meters, with as Civil Case No. 4224. In his complaint, petitioner prayed,
a price of P60.00 per square meter, as alledged by among others, that judgment be rendered ordering
petitioner. On the same date above-mentioned, 7 private respondents to deliver to him the transfer
February 1983, petitioner made a down payment of certificates of title covering the three (3) lots which he
P7,200.00, representing 10% of the alleged total price of had allegedly fully paid for, and which private
P72,000.00 for the four (4) lots. A corresponding receipt for respondents had refused to do so.
the downpayment was issued by TSDC to the petitioner. 1
Moreover, the complaint prayed that judgment be
While the Contract to Sell between TSDC and the rendered ordering the private respondents to jointly and
petitioner stipulated a two-year period within which to severally pay the petitioner, actual damages equal to
pay the total contract price, the latter made substantial P320,000.00, representing unrealized gross profits; moral
payments in the months of June to August 1983. Then on damages at the discretion of the court; and, attorney's
10 August 1983, he paid the sum of P 12,529.30 as his fees equal to P15,000.00, plus the costs of the action. 6
alleged full payment for Lot. No. 16, after which, TSDC
caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the title Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed on 5
to said lot. 2 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal
complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin, for
On 7 November 1983, petitioner paid TSDC the amount of violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, specifically
P 36,067.97, which was allegedly his full payment for the Section 25 thereof, which provides:
remaining three (3) Lots, namely, Lots Nos. 13, 14 and 15.
A corresponding receipt for said amount was also issued PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957
by TSDC to the petitioner. 3
REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS AND WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and probihition is
CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS hereby GRANTED, and the questioned orders dated
THEREOF. March 20, 1985 and May 29, 1985 are set aside. The
respondent Court is ordered to suspend trial of the civil
SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall action until final determination of the criminal case, in line
deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full with the spirit of Section 3, Rule 111 (Rules of Court) and
payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required not (to) allow the intervention of the private-respondent
for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of in the active prosecution of Criminal Case No. 6727. No
Deeds shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In costs. 7
the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding
at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the The decision of the respondent appellate court was
owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the received by petitioner's counsel on 16 October 1985. On
corresponding portion thereof within six months such 30 October 1985, petitioner's counsel filed with the
issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or respondent appellate court a Motion for Extension of
unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in Time to file a motion for reconsideration of aforesaid
accordance herewith. decision, praying for fifteen (15) days from 31 October
1985, within which to file said motion.
xxx xxx xxx
On 15 November 1985, petitioner's counsel filed a Second
SEC. 39. Penalties. — Any person who shall violate any of Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion for
the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation reconsideration, praying for another fifteen (15) days
that may be issued pursuant to this Decree, shall, upon from 15 November 1985, within which to file said motion
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than for reconsideration.
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment
of not more than ten years: Provided, that in the case of On 18 November 1985, petitioner's counsel received the
corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, resolution of the respondent appellate court dated 12
the President, Manager or Administrator or the person November 1985, denying the first motion for extension of
who has charge of the administration of the business shall time, stating among others that the fifteen (15) day
be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-
andlor the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant extendible.
thereto. (Emphasis supplied)
On 2 December 1985, petitioner's counsel still filed his
On 13 September 1984, an information was filed against motion for reconsideration.
respondent Lazatin, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6727,
and was raffled to Branch LX where Civil Case No. 4224 On 16 December 1985, petitioner's counsel received the
was docketed earlier. resolution of the respondent appellate court, dated 12
December 1985, denying petitioner's second motion for
On the basis of Rule 111, Section 3(a) of the Rules on extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, thus
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner filed on 23 February reiterating its Resolution of 12 November 1985.
1985 a motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 4224 and
Criminal Case No. 6727. Despite the objection and On 21 February 1986, petitioner's counsel received the
opposition of the private respondents, in an Order dated resolution of the respondent appellate court dated 14
20 March 1985, the trial court granted the motion and February 1986, denying the motion for reconsideration
ordered consolidation of the two (2) cases. filed on 2 December 1985.

On 14 May 1985, at the pre-trial hearing of both cases, Hence, this petition for certiorari.
petitioners's counsel appeared as counsel for the plaintiff Before going into the merits of the petition, the
in Civil Case No. 4224, and as private prosecutor in procedural aspect should first be threshed out and
Criminal Case No. 6727, Private respondents objected, settled.
and filed their Motion and Opposition to Appearance of
Plaintiff as Private Prosecutor with respect to the trial of As admitted by petitioner himself, he filed with the
the Criminal Case; the opposition was overruled by the respondent appellate court two (2) motions for extension
trial court, in its Order dated 29 May 1985. of time to file motion for reconsideration of the latter
court's decision, with the justification that the two (2)
Hence, private respondents filed a petition for certiorari motions were timely and properly presented, since they
and prohibition with the respondent appellate court, were filed before the expiration of the respective periods
seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial court, sought to be extended. 8
dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985. In due course,
the respondent appellate court rendered a decision The case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, 9 has
favorable to herein private respondents, the dispositive ruled that:
part of which is quoted hereunder:
Beginning one month after the promulgation of this
Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no
motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial xxx xxx xxx
or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or
Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Under the aforequoted provision, the civil action that
Intermediate Appellate Court. may be consolidated with a criminal action, is one for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal offense,
Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas case, or ex delicto. In the case at bar, the civil action filed by
motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial the petitioner was for specific performance with
or reconsideration may no longer be filed before all damages. The main relief sought in the latter case, i.e.,
courts, lower than the Supreme Court. 10 The rule in the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots which
Habaluyas applies even if the motion is filed before the petitioner had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on
expiration of the period sought to be extended, because the Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the
the fifteen (15) day period for filing a motion for new trial private respondent. Hence the civil action filed by the
or reconsideration with said courts, is non-extendible. petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation
arising from a contract, or ex contractu and not one for
But as resolved also in the Habaluyas case, the rule that the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense;
no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new hence, the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable.
trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan
or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, 11 the consolidation of a
the Intermediate Appellate Court, shall be strictly criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto,
enforced "beginning one month after the promulgation may still be done, based upon the express authority of
of this Resolution." The Court promulgated the Habaluyas Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
resolution on 30 May 1986. Thus, the Habaluyas ruling
became effective, and strictly enforced, only beginning 1 Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a
July 1986. common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
In the case at bar, the petitioner filed his motions for matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
30 October 1985 and 15 November 1985, both within the proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
periods sought to be extended. Hence the Habaluyas costs or delay.
ruling did not yet apply to bar said motions for extension.
In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the order
Coming now to the merits of the case, petitioner prays for of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an action for
the reversal of the decision of the respondent appellate the recovery of wage differential, overtime and
court, and the reinstatement of the orders of the trial termination pay, plus damages) with a criminal action
court, allowing the consolidation of the civil and criminal (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it was held that:
case before said trial court, and the intervention of the
petitioners's counsel as private prosecutor in the criminal A Court may order several actions pending before it to
case. be tried together where they arise from the same act,
event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and
As a ground for the consolidation of the criminal and civil depend largely or substantially on the same evidence,
cases, petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3 (a), Rules of provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to
Court, which provides: be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one
party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial
Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. Whenever rights of any of the parties. ...
the offended party shall have instituted the civil action to
enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, as The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid
contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof, multiplicity of suits to guard against oppression and
the following rules shall be observed: abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to
simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment
(a) "After a criminal action has been commenced, the of justice with the least expense and vexation to the
pending civil action arising from the same offense shad parties litigants. 12
be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found until
final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at
rendered. However, if no final judgment has been least, the factual issues in the civil and criminal actions
rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same are almost identical, i.e., whether or not petitioner had
may be consolidated with the criminal action upon fully paid for the lots he purchased from the private
application with the court trying the criminal action. If the respondents, so as to entitle him to the delivery of the
application is granted, the evidence presented and certificates of title to said lots. The evidence in both
admitted in the civil action shall be deemed cases, likewise would virtually be the same, which are,
automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without the Contract to Sell, the letter which contains the
prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that conditions for the purchase of the lots and, to which
any party may wish to present. (Emphasis supplied)" petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity, the official
receipts for the alleged payments made by the
petitioner, and other related documents.

Based on the foregoing, and considering that the

criminal action filed is one for violation of a special law
where, irrespective of the motives, mere commission of
the act prohibited by said special law, constitutes the
offense, then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel,
as private prosecutor in the criminal action, will not
prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.

The consolidation of the two (2) cases in question, where

petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in
the civil case and private prosecutor in the criminal case,
will instead be conducive to the early termination of the
two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and
convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy
administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the

respondent appellate court, dated 9 October 1985, is SET
ASIDE. The Orders of the trial court, in Civil Case No. 4224
and Criminal Case No. 6727, dated 20 March 1985 and
29 May 1985 are REINSTATED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

5. ESPERO SALAO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS respondent was very angry and making threats against
and JOWIE APOLONIO petitioner. As petitioner went to buy cigarettes at the
store of his sister-in-law located also within the
G.R. No. 107725 January 22, 1998 compound, private respondent shouted at him and hit
MENDOZA, J.: him. Petitioner claimed that, in self defense, he pulled his
gun and hit the private respondent with it. He asked the
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of group to throw private respondent out of the
the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the compound.7
Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Malolos, Bulacan, which
ordered petitioner Espero Salao to pay private Petitioner also claimed he was going to file charges
respondent Jowie Apolonio P20,000.00 in actual against private respondent but was persuaded not to do
damages, P10,000.00 in moral damages, and P15,000.00 so by private respondent's mother because they were
in attorney's fees, as well as the appellate court's neighbors. 8 He said he counseled his sons not to keep
resolution of October 23, 1992 denying petitioner's motion private respondent in their company as he suspected him
for reconsideration. to engaged in illegal acts and trying to make his sons do
the same.9
This case originated from a complaint for damages filed
by the private respondent for head injuries allegedly The trial court found the private respondent's version of
inflicted on him by petitioner on August 24, 1986. Private the incident to be more convincing than that of the
respondent, then a senior student at the Philippine Air petitioner which it fount to be "uncorroborated and self-
Transport and Training Services, Inc., testified that on serving." 10 Accordingly, it rendered judgment against the
August 24, 1986, at around 6:30 p.m., he saw a friend's petitioner. The trial court also denied petitioner's
jeep parked outside the compound of the petitioner. subsequent motion for reconsideration and new trial.
Upon entering the compound he saw his friend having On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
drinks with petitioner. He therefore decided to join them decision in toto and later denied petitioner's motion for
but petitioner saw him and drove him away for being a reconsideration. Petitioner then brought this appeal
drug addict. As he was leaving petitioner hit him on the questioning the award of damages and attorney's fees to
head with a gun and threatened him with further harm. private respondent. In his Reply to Private Respondent's
Only the timely intervention of private respondent's Comment, he raised as additional ground the fact that in
brother, Gary Apolonio, and petitioner's mother, Lourdes the criminal case for serious physical injuries and grave
Salao, saved him from further injuries in the hands of threats based on the same incident, the Municipal Trial
petitioner.2 Court of Obando, Bulacan found him "not guilty" and
Private respondent submitted in evidence a certification accordingly dismissed the case against him.
and receipts,3 in support of his claim for damages. The The appeal is without merit.
expenses were incurred for an operation at Martinez
Memorial Hospital which necessitated private First. It is settled that issues not raised in the court a
respondent's confinement there from September 4 to 9, quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in this
1986.4 Court without violating the basic rules of fair play, justice
and due process. 11 In the case at bar, petitioner
The private respondent's claim was corroborated by his appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning two errors
brother, Gary Apolonio, who testified that while he was allegedly committed by the trial court, to wit:
buying cigarettes from a store in front of petitioner's
residence, he saw the latter hit his brother on the head 1. The Trial Court erred in taking cognizance of and
with a gun, even as he accused him of teaching hearing the case without plaintiff first availing the
petitioner's son, Dennis, how to abuse drugs. Gary said he conciliation process provided by PD 1508; and
had to take his brother to the hospital because of injuries
on the head caused by petitioner.5 2. The Trial Court erred in denying defendant-appellants
motion for reconsideration and alternatively motion for
Dr. Antonio Sarrosa testified that he operated on Jowie new trial.
Apolonio for a fractured skull at the Martinez Memorial
Hospital.6 The propriety of such award of damages and the effect
of petitioner's acquittal in the criminal cases were not
On the other hand, petitioner claimed it was private questioned by petitioner. Consequently, he is barred from
respondent who tried to assault him and he only acted in raising these questions for the first time in this appeal.
self defense by hitting private respondent with his gun.
According to petitioner, on August 24, 1986, between 5 Second. Petitioner has not shown that the award of
and 6:30 p.m., he was surprised to see private respondent damages is not supported by evidence. For example, the
inside their yard having drinks with his nephew and the award of P20,000.00 for actual damages is based on
latter's friends. Because he told the group to stop drinking, hospital bill and receipts for medicine which private
private respondent resented his order and left. Later, respondent properly identified in court and formally
petitioner's wife arrived and told him that private offered in evidence. 12
That private respondent is competent to testify regarding to the private respondent. Petitioner invokes Rule 111,
the authenticity and due execution of these documents §2(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
is beyond doubt. Rule 132, §20 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence provides: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from
§20. Proof of private document. — Before any private a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, the civil might arise did not exist. 17
its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
The civil liability referred to in this Rule is the civil liability
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or arising from crime (ex delicto). It is not the civil liability
written; or for quasi delict which is allowed to be brought
"separately and independently" of the criminal action by
(b) By evidence of the genuiness of the signature or Art. 33 of the Civil Code. 18 The civil liability based on such
handwriting of the maker. cause of action is not extinguished even by a declaration
Any other private document need only be identified as in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not
that which it is claimed to be. happened or has not been committed by the
accused. 19 Indeed, because the offended party does
Needless to say, this factual finding of the trial court, not intervene in the criminal prosecution, it is entirely
especially because it was affirmed by the Court of possible that all the witnesses presented in the civil action
Appeals and petitioner in this case has presented no may not have been presented by the public prosecutor
rebutting evidence, is well nigh conclusive in this in the criminal action with the result that the accused in
appeal. 13 the criminal case may be acquitted. This is what
happened in the recent case of Heirs of Guaring v. Court
The award of P10,000.00 for moral damages is likewise of Appeals 20 where, because the only survivor in a motor
appropriate. This being a case of physical injuries resulting car accident whose testimony proved to be pivotal in the
from a crime or quasi-delict, moral damages may be civil case was not called to testify in the criminal
awarded in the discretion of the court, as provided by prosecution of the driver of the other vehicle, the latter
Art. 2219(1) or (2) of the Civil Code. The evidence gives was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
no ground for doubt that such discretion was properly
and judiciously exercised by the trial court. The award is in We therefore hold that petitioner's acquittal in the
fact consistent with the rule that moral damages are not criminal case for serious physical injuries and grave
intended to enrich the injured party, but to alleviate the threats is not conclusive of his liability for damages to
moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the private respondent. This case is separate, distinct and
defendant's culpable action. 14 independent of the criminal action and requires only a
preponderance to prove it.
With regard to the award of P15,000.00 for attorney's fees,
petitioner invokes rulings 15 that in view of the policy WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
against placing a premium on the right to litigate, awards AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.
for attorney's fees must be based on findings of fact and
law, expressed in the judgment of the trial court, which SO ORDERED.
bring the case within the exceptions enumerated in Art.
2208 of the Civil Code. In this case, the award of
attorney's fees is based on the trial court finding that
because of this case private respondent was compelled
to secure the services of counsel for P20,000.00.16 (The
actual award is for P15,000.00) Art. 2208(2) provides:

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees

and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:. . . .

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled

the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his interest; . . . .

Contrary to petitioner's contention, there was

compliance by the trial court with the rule regarding
attorney's fees.

Third. Nor is there merit in petitioner's claim that his

acquittal in the criminal action for serious physical injuries
constitutes a definitive finding that he has no civil liability
 6. Cojuanco Jr. vs. CA and/or prostitution, petitioners filed on 11 July 1972 with
the then Court of First Instnce (now Regional Trial Court)
G.R. No. L-37404 of Quezon City a civil action for Damages based on Libel
(November 18, 1991) against the Graphic Publishing Co., Inc., as owner; J.
Antoni Araneta, as publisher; Luis R. Mauricio, as general
May a criminal case for libel and an independent civil manager and editor; and Conde de Makati, as writer, of
action for damages arising therefrom, filed pursuant to the GRAPHIC magazine. The case, docketed as Civil
Article 33 of the Civil Code, be consolidated for joint trial? Case No. Q-16725, wa raffled to Branch XVI of said court.
The complaint was amended on 20 September 1972 4 to
The case which provoked this issue eighteen (18) years specifically Identity Conde de Makati herein private
ago was then one of first impression. However, its early respondent George P. Sison.
resolution did not seem to merit priority from the parties
and so it became one of the many "move in the On 29 December 1972, the City Fiscal of Quezon City with
premises" cases of this Court. the above court a criminal case for libel against
defendants Sison, Mauricio and Araneta. 5 The case was
Subsequent events had significantly dimmed the glow of docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-2713 and was raffled to
the issue's novelty. In the 1982 case of Caños vs. Peralta, Branch V thereof.
et al., 1 this Court enunciated a new doctrine which
significantly touched upon and indirectly, albeit partly, On 7 March 1973, after issues in Civil Case No. Q-16725
resolved this issue. Then followed amendments to the joined and the accused in Criminal Case No. Q-2713
Rules on Criminal Procedure, some of which allowed, in arraigned, petitioners filed therein separate motions to
certain instances, the consolidation of the civil suit with consolidate the criminal case with the civil case in Branch
the criminal action for the recovery of the civil liability XVI alleging that the evidence to be presented in both
arising from the latter. 2 In a later case, Naguiat vs. would be the same much valuable time and effort of the
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 3 decided in 1988, court as well as that of the parties would be saved by
this Court went further by allowing the consolidation with such consolidation; and, moreover Article 360 of the
the criminal action for violation of a special law of a civil Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides, inter alia,
case for specific performance with damages arising from that in libel the civil action shall be filed in the same court
said law. Be that as it may, there is still the need to meet where the criminal action is filed and vice-versa,
the issue squarely. provided, however, that the court where the criminal
action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall
The parties do not dispute the following antecedents: acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
In the 14 June 1972 issue of the GRAPHIC, a weekly Only defendants Mauricio and Araneta, now private
magazine of general circulation in the Philippines, under respondents, filed their opposition to the motions. They
the column Social Climbing by one "Conde de Makati," claim tha petitioners, having filed a separate civil action,
later identified as George F. Sison, the following item have no legal standing to intervene in the criminal case;
appeared: there is no provision in the Rules of Court authorizing the
ONCE UPON A time a beautiful Blue Lady (GOC) used to consolidation of the criminal case with the separate civil
frequent the office of the Honorable Sir. action; the rule contemplate the consolidation of the
hearing of two (2) or more cases pending before the
Because of her well-known beauty and charm, the same judge, and not when the cases are before different
frequency of her visits did not pass unnoticed by our Lady courts or different branches of the same court; different
of the House by Pasig. An investigation by her battery of rules on the competency of witnesses and the weight o
personal "spies" revealed the beautiful Blue Lady was evidence necessary to make proper findings in the two (2
"following up" her three-million-peso to from one of our proceedings always exist; and consolidation would
leading government-lending institutions. circumvent the rules giving the prosecution in the criminal
action, thru th fiscal, direction and control over the case,
"Ang mahal naman ng hanyang ...! exclaimed our Lady and granting the offended parties the right to intervene
of the House. in the criminal prosecution once they opt to pursue a civil
action.
Aba, floating rate yata tayo ngayon. Even my friend
Marquessa de Culi-Culi has upped her price by 50 On 13 October 1973, then Judge Pacifico de Castro of
percent, "kasi ang mahal na bilihin ngayon, kahit bulak at Brane V of the above court handed down an Order in
alkohol." Criminal Cas No. Q-2713 overruling the opposition,
Claiming that the publication alludes to petitioners- granting the motion to consolidate, and ordering the
spouses and that it is false, malicious and constitutes a transfer of the records of said cas to Branch XVI for
vicious attack on petitioner-wife's virtue, honor and consolidation with Civil Case No. Q-16725. 6 In overruling
the opposition, the judge held that the Court may in
character as it imputes her not only the corrupt and
immoral act of "following up" a alleged loan, but also the appropriate cases, order motu proprio the consolidation
commission of corrupt and immortal acts of adultery of cases as such power is inherent in the court. 7 The
mere absene of any specific rule authorizing the present evidence for criminal what complainant would
consolidation of the trial of criminal and civil case does wish to present for civil; and when it comes to turn (sic) of
not necessarily deprive the court of its inherent power to petitioners present their evidence, it might well happen
do so as long as it does not prejudice th parties or place that Fiscal might object and insist in objecting but
difficulties during trial, thereby defeating th avowed complainants as plaintiffs, in civil might permit, and so on,
purpose of consolidation, which is to avoid unnecessary — this Court can hardly see who should be obeyed
costs, delay and incovenience to the parties. The captain in such emergencies; Therefore, a joint trial of the
interpretation of the rule as urged in the opposition was two case where filed independently but tried
clearly not meant exclude consolidation of cases consolidatedly would be not (sic) clear and orderly trial;
pending in different courts or branches of the same court but a confusing and chaotic one;
as long as such branches or courts agree to the
consolidation. Generally, the rules on evidence are the 4th. — Still worse, since petitioners as accused are
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, whether entitled to be silent, but as defendants in civil, may be
civil or criminal, and the fact that there, nevertheless, called upon as hosti witnesses, it might as well happen
would be different rules governing the competency of that complainants as plaintiffs might call them in that
witnesses and weight of evidence necessary to make capacity, and perhaps petitioners would have valid
proper findings in the two (2) cases could not present ground to refuse to testify, but it being a joint trial, this
special difficulties. Furthermore, it is not clear in what way Court can hardly see how in such a possibility, even
the fiscal would be divested of his control and supervision probability, the Judge can divide his brain, but let it not
over the criminal prosecution. be forgotten that the rest sufficiency of proof in both
cases unfortunately is different, me preponderance in the
Mauricio filed a motion to reconsider the Order, which civil, beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal and yet, in
Sison adopted. the final analysis, the determination must rest in t
conscience of trial Judge as Filangiere has written, XXVI
In the order of 10 April 1973, the trial court denied the Enciclope Juridica Española 399, and conscience is
motion. Mauricio and Sison went to the Court of Appeals indivisible;
on a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
with preliminary injunction to seek annulment of the 5th. — There further is the point of elementary fair play; sin
aforesaid Orders of 13 March and 10 April 1973. The under law, Art. 33 and the Rules, Rule 111, complainants
herein petitioners were among the respondents therein. were free vindicate their rights by either just intervening in
The petition was docketed as C.A.G.R. SP-02026-R. the criminal case offended parties, or by filing an
independent civil cation, and since they cannot and are
On 25 June 1975, the Court of Appeals promulgated a not permitted, to do both, having made the choice, it
decision 8 granting the petition and setting aside the would not be very fair that they should be permitted
challenged Orders on the basis of the following grounds: retrace (sic) their steps and reap the benefit of a joint trial
l st. — There is really no law nor (sic) rule that expressly which they have opted to refuse at the beginning by
permits consolidation even quasi-consolidation of joint filing an independent civil action ... 9
trial, of a criminal and a civil case; .... The motion for reconsideration of the decision by
2nd — Not only this, in cases of defamation, fraud or responde Judge de Castro having been denied by the
physical injuries, pursuant to Art. 33 and Rule 111, Sec. 2, Court of Appeal the petitioners filed on 15 September
the civil can be filed independently of the criminal which 1973 the instant petition for the review of the decision. In
is the case here, but in that situation, the law and the support thereof, petition interposed the following
rules expressly dictate that such civil action, grounds:

"shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution I

and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT
going to show that the apparent intent of the Law and ARTICLE 33 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE AND SECTION 2, RULE
Rule Maker was to command that where offended party 111 OF THE NEW RULES OF COURT PROHIBIT THE
should choose to file an independent civil action, then CONSOLDATION, FOR JOINT TRIAL, OR (SIC) THESE
said civil action should proceed entirely separate (sic), CRIMINAL CASES.
independent of and disconnected with, the criminal, and II
this can well be invoked to show that the law and the
rules would and should be interpreted not to authorize THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THE (SIC) A
consolidation; JOINT TRIAL OF TWO CASES WOULD ONLY CAUSE
CONFUSION AND CHAOS.
3rd. — Since Fiscal controls criminal prosecution but
complainan plaintiff in civil controls the civil complaint, it III
might well happen that Fiscal might insist on proving for
prosecution of criminal, what complainant might refuse THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT JOINT
to prove for civil, or vice-versa, Fiscal might refuse to TRIAL OF THESE TWO CASES WOULD PUT THE TRIAL JUDGE
IN A PREDICAMENT TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE ACCUSED IN The argument fails to consider the provisions of Article 31
THE CRIMINAL CASE. 10 of the Civil Code. Civil Case No. 558 is a separate and
distinct action from Criminal Case No. 326. The former is
In compliance with the Resolution of 20 September 1973, based upon a contract of services entered into by the
11 private respondents Mauricio and Sison filed their parties, not upon the civil liability arising from the offense
Comment on 4 October 1973. 12 However, instead of charged in Criminal Case No. 326, i.e., non-payment of
opposing the petition, they manifested that considering the minimum wage, punishable under Section 3 (a) of
the important question of law not yet resolved, it would Rep. Act 602, as amended, in relation to Section 15 (a) of
be advisable for this Court to give due course to the the same Act. Being essentially an action for
petition to enable it to pass upon such a novel question enforcement of an obligation ex-contractual, the civil
and make an authoritative ruling for the guidance of the case can proceed independently of the latter, in
bench and the bar. accordance with Article 31 of the Civil Code:
This Court gave due course to the petition in the Art, 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation
Resolution of 10 October 1973. 13 not arising from the act or omission complained of as a
On 1 December 1973, petitioners filed their Brief 14 felony, such civil action may proceed independently of
reiterating, as assignments of errors, the aforementioned the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
grounds. Private respondents filed their Brief on 29 the latter.
January 1974. 15 But did respondent judge abuse his discretion in ordering
As We stated in the opening paragraph, the core issue the consolidation and joint trial of the criminal and civil
presented in this case is whether the criminal case and cases? A court may order several actions pending before
the separate and independent civil action to enforce the it to be tried together where they arise from the same
civil liability arising from the former, filed pursuant to act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues,
Article 33 of the Civil Code, may be consolidated for joint and depend largely or substantially on the same
trial. We also pointed that the issue had been partly evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over
resolved by the Caños and Naguiat cases and the the case to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not
subsequent amendments to the Rules Criminal give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the
Procedure. substantial rights of any of the parties (citing 1 CJS, 1347).
Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under
In Caños, We affirmed the Order of respondent Judge Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court:
Peralta of the then Court of First Instance of Davao del
Sur ordering consolidation of Criminal Case No. 326 and Section 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a
Civil Case No. 5 The former was for violation of Section 3 common question of law or fact are pending before the
(a) of R.A. No. 602, amended, otherwise known as the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
Minimum Wage Law, alleged non-payment by Caños of matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
the minimum wage to employee, Rolando Apas, filed by consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
the fiscal against the fo on 23 December 1971. The latter proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
was a civil action filed on August 1972 by Apas against costs or delay.
Caños for collection of differential, overtime and The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid
termination pay, plus damages. Caños maitained that multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and
after the institution of Criminal Case No. 326, proceedings abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to
in Civil Case No. 558 should be suspended final judgment simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment
in the criminal action pursuant to paragraph (a) and (b), of justice with the least expense and vexation to the
Section 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which read: parties litigants (citing 1 CJS 1342-1343).
[a] Criminal and civil actions arising from the same Consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound
offense may be instituted separately, but after the discretion of the court, and its action in consolidating will
criminal action has been commenced the civil action not be held in the absence of manifest abuse of
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been discretion. In the instant case, respondent iudge did not
rendered in the criminal action; abuse his discretion in ordering the joint trial of the two
[b] After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil cases. There is no showing that such joint trial would
action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted, prejudice any substantial right of petitioner. Neither does
and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it the latter question the court's jurisdiction to try and
may be found, until final judgment in the criminal decide the two cases.
proceedings has been rendered; In Naguiat, We set aside the 20 March 1985 decision of
In affirming the challenged consolidation Order, this Intermediate Appellate Court annulling the Order of
Court, per Justice Escolin held: Branch LX of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City
which decre the consolidation of Criminal Case No. 6727
for violation Section 25, P.D. No. 957 16 (on delivery of title
of lot or unit up full payment thereof) which was filed, at stage before final judgment it may be found, until final
Naguiat's instance, the fiscal on 13 September 1984 judgment in the criminal action has been rendered.
against Manuel Lazatin, president of the Timog-Silangan However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the
Development Corp. (TSDC), Civil Case No. 4224 in the trial court in the civil action, the same may be
same court, a complaint for specific performance with consolidated with the criminal action upon application
damages filed by Naguiat against TSDC a Lazatin; We with the court trying the criminal action. If the application
then reinstated said Order. In the civil case, Naguiat is granted, the evidence presented and admitted in the
prayed for judgment ordering, inter alia, said defendants civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in
deliver to him the transfer certificates of title to three (3) the criminal action, without prejudice to the admission of
lots which he had allegedly paid in full. Both cases were additional evidence that any party may wish to present.
raffled Branch LX of the above court. The Intermediate In case of consolidation, both the criminal and the civil
Appellate Court disagreed with the trial court and actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
ordered instead suspension of the civil case until final
determination of criminal case, in line with the spilit of (b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
Section 3, Rule 111 of Rules of Court. It further disallowed extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from
the intervention of Naguiat in the criminal case. In a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which
overruling the Intermediate Appell Court, We held: the civil might arise did not exist. (3a)

In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at Section 3 of said Rule referred to in the opening
least, factual issues in the civil and criminal actions are paragraph of Section 2 reads as follows:
almost Identical i.e., whether or not petitioner had fully SECTION 3. When civil action may proceed
paid for the lots he purchase from the private independently. — In the cases provided for in Articles 32,
respondents, so as to entitle him to the delivery of 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
certificates of title to said lots. The evidence in both independent civil action which has been reserved may
cases, likewise would virtually be the same, which are, be brought by the offended party, shall proceed
the Contract to Sell, the letter which contains the independently of the criminal action, and shall require
conditions for the purchase of the lots and which only a preponderance evidence. (2a)
petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity, the official
receipts for the alleged payments made by the while the first paragraph of Section 1, referred to in
petitioner, and other related documents. subsection (a) of Section 2, reads:

Based on the foregoing, and considering that the SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. —
criminal action filed is one for violation of a special law When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
where, irrespective of motives, mere commission of the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the
act prohibited by said special constitutes the offense, criminal action, unless offended party waives the civil
then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel, as action, reserves his right to institute separately, or institutes
private prosecutor in the criminal action, will not the civil action prior to the criminal action ...
prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the Civil action for
The consolidation of the two (2) cases in question, where recovery of damages arising from a crime, or ex delicto,
petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in may filed separately from the criminal case either before
the civil case and private proseutor in the criminal case, the institution of the latter, which may be done without
will instead be conducive to the early termination of the reservation, after such institution, provided, however, that
two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and a reservation that effect has been made. If in the
convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy meantine the criminal action is instituted, the civil action
administration of justice. which has been reserve cannot be commenced until
final judgment has been render in the former. This
The aforesaid Section 3 of Rule 111 was subsequently restriction does not, however, apply to the cases
amended, and is now Section 2 thereof, and reads in full provided for in the aforecited Section 3. Thus, in the case
as follows: provided for in Articles 32, 33 (as in the instant case), 34
SECTION 2. Institution of separate civil action. — Except in and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil action may be filed
the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof, after the even a the institution of the criminal case, provided that
criminal action has been commenced, the civil action prior proper reservation had been made.
which has been reserved cannot be instituted until final Subsection (a) of Section 2 refers to civil cases filed
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. before the institution of the criminal cases. Since it makes
(a) Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the reference to first paragraph of Section 1, and the latter
civil action as provided for in the first paragraph of necessarily include the cases under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
Section 1 hereof before the filing of the criminal action 2176 ofthe Civil Code expressly recognized in the second
and the criminal action is subsequently commenced, the paragraph thereof which reads:
pending civil action shall be suspended, in whatever
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnit under the be filed in the same court where the criminal action if
Revsed Penal Code, and damages under Article 32, 33, filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court
34 and 2176 the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from where the criminal action or civil action for damages is
the same act or omission of the accused. first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other
courts: ...
it follows without saying that an independent civil action
for t recovery of civil liability, authorized under Articles 32, If the court referred to is a multi-sala court, it may
33, 34 or 2176 of the Civil Code, filed before the institution happen, as in this case, that the criminal and civil actions
of the criminal case, may be consolidated with the latter, are raffled or assigned to different salas. In this situation,
subject to the condition that no final judgment has been consolidation one with another earlier filed would not
rendered in the criminal case. If this is permitted, there is only be practical and economical — it would subserve
neither rhyme nor reason why, given the existence of the the very purpose of the law Consolidation of cases
condition, an independent civil action under any of the assigned to different branches of a court had earlier
said Articles, but filed after the institution of the criminal been recognized. In Raymundo, et al. vs. Felipe, et al., 19
case, may not be consolidated with the latter. This We held:
second scenario is equally and logically addressed by
the reasoning behind the provision for the first situation. [A]lthough consolidation of several cases involving the
same parties and subject matter is a matter addressed to
That these provisions were incorporated into the Rules the discretion of the trial court, joint hearing becomes a
after this petition was filed may not be interposed to deny matter of duty if two or more cases are tried before the
their retroactive application since procedural laws may same judge, or even if filed with the different branches of
be given retroactive application. 17 the same court of first instance, provided one of such
case has not been partially tried.
Furthermore, Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court
authorizes consolidation of actions involving common This modified what this Court stated in PAL, et al., vs.
questions of law or fact pending before the court. The Teodoro et al., 20 that the provision on consolidation 21
purpose or object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity refers to the consolidation of hearings of two (2) or more
of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent cases which are before the same judge, and not when
delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the the cases are pending before different courts or different
trial court, and save unnecessary costs or expense; in branches of the same court.
short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and
vexation to the parties litigants. 18 This provision applies to In view of the foregoing, it would no longer be necessary
both civil and criminal actions. Caños and Naguiat had consider the other reasons adduced by respondent
removed any doubt on this point. Court of Appeals in setting aside the Orders of the trial
court. Suffice to say that the feared chaos or confusion in
It is self-evident that Civil Case No. Q-16725 and Criminal procedure is at be speculative and the possible difficulty
Case No. Q-2713 involve common or Identical questions the judge may face in light of the different tests of
of fact and law, and that they would even have the sufficiency of proof in each case unfounded for it fails to
same witnesses. These considerations alone justify the consider the instances when the civil aspect is impliedly
exercise by the court of its discretion to consolidate the instituted with the criminal action.
cases for joint hearing to attain the salutary purpose of
consolidation. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The challenge
Decision of 25 June 1973 and Resolution of 7 August 1973
There is yet a further consideration why in the instant case of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-02026-R are
consolidation of Civil Case No. Q-16725 and Criminal hereby SE ASIDE and the Order of the trial court of
Case No. Q-2713 should be allowed. What is involved is Quezon City of 13 March 1973 consolidating for joint trial
the crime of libel. As correctly stated by petitioners, per Civil Case No. Q-16725 and Criminal Case No. Q-2713,
the third paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal and its Order of 10 April 1973 denying the motion to
Code, as amended, the criminal case for libel and the reconsider the former, are hereby REINSTATED.
civil action for damages arising therefrom must be filed in
the same court. The pertinent portion there reads as No pronouncement as to costs.
follows: IT IS SO ORDERED.
xxx xxx xxx Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Romero, JJ., concur.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of
written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall
be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first
instance of the province city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense. ... Provided, further, That the civil action shall
 7. NEPLUM, INC., Petitioner, v. EVELYN V. 29 November 1999, a Monday.’
ORBESO, Respondent.
"2.04 On 28 January 2000, a Friday, petitioner received its
G.R. No. 141986. July 11, 2002 copy of the 24 January 2000 Order of the Trial Court
DECISION denying for lack of merit petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"2.05 On 31 January 2000, a Monday, petitioner filed its 28
Within what period may private offended parties appeal January 2000 Notice of Appeal from the Judgment. On
the civil aspect of a judgment acquitting the accused the same day, petitioner filed by registered mail its 28
based on reasonable doubt? Is the 15-day period to be January 2000 Amended Notice of Appeal.
counted from the promulgation of the decision to the
accused or from the time a copy thereof is served on the "2.06 On 17 February 2000, the Trial Court issued its
offended party? Our short answer is: from the time the Challenged Order, which petitioner received through the
offended party had actual or constructive knowledge of private prosecutor on 22 February 2000, denying due
the judgment, whether it be during its promulgation or as course to petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Amended
a consequence of the service of the notice of the Notice of Appeal . . ." 5
decision.cralaw : red

The Case Ruling of the Trial Court

Before us is a Petition 1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule The RTC refused to give due course to petitioner’s Notice
45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February of Appeal 6 and Amended Notice of Appeal. 7 It
17, 2000 Order 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of accepted respondent’s arguments that the Judgment
Makati City (Branch 133) in Criminal Case No. 96-246. The from which the appeal was being taken had become
Order reads in full as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph final, because the Notice of Appeal and the Amended
Notice of Appeal were filed beyond the reglementary
"Opposition to Notice of Appeal being well-taken, as period. The 15-day period was counted by the trial court
prayed for, the Notice of Appeal and the Amended from the promulgation of the Decision sought to be
Notice of Appeal are denied due course." 3 reviewed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The foregoing Order effectively prevented petitioner from Hence, this Petition. 8
appealing the civil aspect of the criminal proceedings in The Issue
which the accused was acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary In its Memorandum, petitioner submits this lone issue for
The Facts our consideration:jgc:
"Whether the period within which a private offended
The factual antecedents, as narrated by petitioner in its party may appeal from, or move for a reconsideration of,
Memorandum, 4 are as follows: or otherwise challenge, the civil aspect of a judgment in
"2.01 On 29 October 1999, the trial court promulgated its a criminal action should be reckoned from the date of
judgment (the ‘Judgment’) in Criminal Case No. 96-246 promulgation or from the date of such party’s actual
acquitting the accused of the crime of estafa on the receipt of a copy of such judgment considering that any
ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of party appealing or challenging such judgment would
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused necessarily need a copy thereof, which is in writing and
and her counsel as well as the public and private which clearly express the factual and legal bases thereof
prosecutors were present during such promulgation. to be able to file an intelligent appeal or other
challenge." 9
‘2.01.1 The private prosecutor represented the interests of The Court’s Ruling
the petitioner who was the private offended party in
Criminal Case No. 96-246.’ The Petition is unmeritorious.

"2.02 On 12 November 1999, the petitioner, through the Preliminary Matter:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
private prosecutor, received its copy of the Judgment.
Mode of Review
"2.03 On 29 November 1999, petitioner filed its 25
November 1999 Motion for Reconsideration (Civil Aspect) Petitioner brought this case to this Court through a
of the Judgment. Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. The Petition seeks to set aside the February 17,
‘2.03.1 Considering that 27 November 1999 was a 2000 Order of the RTC which, in effect, disallowed
Saturday, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration on petitioner’s appeal of its Judgment.
 the duty of using the proper mode of review.chanrob1es
An ordinary appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
(CA) is "taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed "e) Duty of counsel — It is therefore incumbent upon
from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party." every attorney who would seek review of a judgment or
10 Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of order promulgated against his client to make sure of the
appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal nature of the errors he proposes to assign, whether these
itself.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary be of fact or of law; then upon such basis to ascertain
carefully which Court has appellate jurisdiction; and
A petition for review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of finally, to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal
a lower court’s decision or final order direct to the prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or
Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order is not a imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his client’s
"decision or final order" from which an appeal may be cause." 17
taken. The Rules of Court states
explicitly:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph This Court has often admonished litigants for
unnecessarily burdening it with the task of determining
"No appeal may be taken from:chanrob1es virtual 1aw under which rule a petition should fall. It has likewise
library warned lawyers to follow scrupulously the requisites for
appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or
x x x imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to the
client’s cause. 18
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;" 11
On this score alone, the Petition could have been given
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari is the suitable short shrift and outrightly dismissed. Nevertheless, due to
remedy that petitioner should have used, in view of the the novelty of the issue presented and its far-reaching
last paragraph of the same provision which effects, the Court will deal with the arguments raised by
states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph petitioner and lay down the rule on this matter. As an
exception to Circular 2-90, it will treat the present
"In all the above instances where the judgment or final proceedings as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65." 12 Main Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In turn, Rule 65, Section 1, Timeliness of Appeal

provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Petitioner contends that an appeal by the private
"SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari — When any tribunal, board offended party under the Rules of Criminal Procedure
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has must be made within 15 days from the time the
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with appealing party receives a copy of the relevant
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of judgment. It cites Section 6, Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules on
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, Criminal Procedure, which
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and "SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or of the judgment or order appealed from. This period for
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a
justice may require." 13 (Italics supplied) motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice
of the order overruling the motion shall have been served
By availing itself of the wrong or inappropriate mode of upon the accused or his counsel." (Italics supplied)
appeal, the Petition merits an outright dismissal. 14
Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 15 (hereinafter "Circular") The italicized portion of the provision uses the conjunctive
is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an "or" in providing for the reckoning period within which an
inappropriate mode of appeal appeal must be taken. It shall be counted from the
thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph promulgation or the notice of the judgment or order.

"4. Erroneous Appeals — An appeal taken to either the It is petitioner’s assertion that "the parties would always
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or need a written reference or a copy of the judgment . . .
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed." 16 to intelligently examine and consider the judgment from
which an appeal will be taken." 19 Thus, it concludes that
The same Circular provides that petitioner’s counsel has the 15-day period for filing a notice of appeal must be
counted from the time the losing party actually receives referred to in Articles 32, 27 33, 28 34 29 and 2176 30 of
a copy of the decision or order. Petitioner ratiocinates the Civil Code shall remain "separate, distinct and
that it "could not be expected to capture or memorize all independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the
the material details of the judgment during the same act. Here are some direct consequences of such
promulgation thereof." 20 It likewise poses the question: revision and omission:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"why require all proceedings in court to be recorded in
writing if the parties thereto would not be allowed the 1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the
benefit of utilizing these written [documents]?" 21 Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal
prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein.
We clarify. Had it been the accused who appealed, we
could have easily ruled that the reckoning period for filing 2. The institution or waiver of the right to file a separate
an appeal be counted from the promulgation of the civil action arising from the crime charged does not
judgment. In People v. Tamani, 22 the Court was extinguish the right to bring such action.
confronted with the question of when to count the period
within which the accused must appeal the criminal 3. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot
conviction. Answered the Court:chanrob1es virtual law recover more than once for the same act or omission.
library
Thus, deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is
"The assumption that the fifteen-day period should be the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil
counted from February 25, 1963, when a copy of the liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities from quasi-
decision was allegedly served on appellant’s counsel by delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil
registered mail is not well-taken. The word ‘promulgation’ action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the
in section 6 should be construed as referring to criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party
‘judgment’, while the word ‘notice’ should be construed may — subject to the control of the prosecutor — still
as referring to ‘order’. 23 intervene in the criminal action in order to protect such
remaining civil interest therein. 31 By the same token, the
The interpretation in that case was very clear. The period offended party may appeal a judgment in a criminal
for appeal was to be counted from the date of case acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt, but
promulgation of the decision. Text writers 24 are in only in regard to the civil liability ex delicto.chanrob1es
agreement with this interpretation. virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In an earlier case, 25 this Court explained the same And this is precisely what herein petitioner wanted to do:
interpretation in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph to appeal the civil liability arising from the crime — the
civil liability ex delicto.
"It may, therefore, be stated that one who desires to
appeal in a criminal case must file a notice to that effect Period for
within fifteen days from the date the decision is
announced or promulgated to the defendant. And this Perfecting an Appeal
can be done by the court either by announcing the
judgment in open court as was done in this case, or by Section 6 of Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
promulgating the judgment in the manner set forth in Procedure declares:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
[S]ection 6, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court." 26
"Section 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must
Clear as those interpretations may have been, they be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the
cannot be applied to the case at bar, because in those judgment or from notice of the final order appealed
instances it was the accused who appealed, while here from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
we are confronted with the offended party’s appeal of suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
the civil aspect only. Thus, the question arises whether the reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling
accused-appellant’s period for appeal, as construed in the motions has been served upon the accused or his
the cited cases, is the same as that for the private counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
offended party. We answer in the negative. to run."cralaw virtua1aw library

No Need to Reserve This provision is similar, though not identical, to Section 6

of Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules invoked by petitioner. The
Independent Civil Action difference is that the former makes clear that
promulgation refers to "judgment," and notice refers to
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules on "final order appealed from."cralaw virtua1aw library
Criminal Procedure deleted the requirement of reserving
independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed Taken on its face, the provision seems to suggest that the
separately from criminal ones. Thus, the civil actions period for any appeal, whether by the accused or by the
private offended party, must be counted from and remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice." 32
understood in conjunction with the provision on the
promulgation of the judgment. This provision mentions the Appeal of the Accused Different
presence of the accused, the judge or the clerk of court
in certain instances, and/or the counsel or representative from That of the Offended Party
of the accused. Petitioner is correct in observing that the
private offended party is not required to be present Clearly, the Rule on the promulgation of judgment refers
during the promulgation; in fact, the said party is not to the accused, not to the private offended party, who is
even mentioned in the provision. not even required to be present during the proceedings.
Since the judgment may be promulgated in the absence
For clarity, the 2000 Rule on the promulgation of of the latter, it will be inequitable to count from that date
judgment is quoted in full the period of appeal for the said party. It is but logical to
hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph begin tolling such period only upon service of the notice
of judgment upon the offended party, and not from its
"Section 6. Promulgation of judgment — The judgment is promulgation to the accused. It is only through notice to
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the the former that an appeal can reasonably be made, for
accused and any judge of the court in which it was it is only from that date that the complainant will have
rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, knowledge of the need to elevate the case. Till then, the
the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his remedy of appeal would not be an option in the event of
counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or an adverse judgment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
outside the province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated by the clerk of court. We clarify also that the situations covered by this Rule
(Section 6, Rule 122) are limited to appeals of judgments
"If the accused is confined or detained in another rendered by regional trial and inferior courts. In higher
province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by courts, there is no promulgation in the concept of Section
the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having 6, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the
jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, a decision is
upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. promulgated when the signed copy thereof is filed with
The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority the clerk of court, who then causes copies to be served
to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail upon the parties or their counsels. 33 Hence, the
bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of presence of either party during promulgation is not
the trial court convicting the accused changed the required.
nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the The period to appeal, embodied in Section 6 of Rule 122
appellate court. of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, cannot be applied
equally to both accused-appellant and private offended
"The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the party. Further bolstering this argument is the second
accused personally or through his bondsman or warden sentence of this provision which mandates as
and counsel, requiring him to be present at the follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in
absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from ". . . This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
address. reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling
the motions has been served upon the accused or his
"In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the to run." 34 (Italics supplied)
promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment
in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at The above-quoted portion provides for the procedure for
his last known address or thru his counsel. suspending and resuming the reglementary period of
appeal specifically mentioned in the preceding
"If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the sentence. However, it is clear that the procedure
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall operates only in relation to the accused. This conclusion
lose the remedies available in these rules against the can be deduced from the fact that after being
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within interrupted, the period to appeal begins to run again
fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, only after the accused or the counsel of the accused is
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion given notice of the order overruling the motion for
for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall reconsideration or for new trial. Verily, the assumption
state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled behind this provision is that the appeal was taken by the
promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a accused, not by the private offended party.
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
Indeed, the rules governing the period of appeal in a the present controversy. In short, was petitioner’s appeal
purely civil action should be the same as those covering timely filed?
the civil aspects of criminal judgments. If these rules are
not completely identical, the former may be suppletory If we were to follow the reasoning of petitioner, the
to the latter. As correctly pointed out by petitioner," [t]he Notice of Appeal filed on January 31, 2000 was on time,
appeal from the civil aspect of a judgment in a criminal considering that (1) the judgment had been received by
action is, for all intents and purposes, an appeal from a its counsel only on November 12, 1999; and (2) the
judgment in a civil action as such appeal cannot affect Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 29, 2000
the criminal aspect thereof." 35 Being akin to a civil interrupted the running of the reglementary
action, the present appeal may be guided by the Rules period.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
on Civil Procedure.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
However, a peculiar circumstance in this case militates
In People v. Santiago, 36 the Court has definitively ruled against this conclusion. Here, the private prosecutor
that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the himself was present during the promulgation of the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the Judgment. This fact is undeniable, as petitioner itself
private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising admits his presence in its Memorandum as
therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal
aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, "2.01 On 29 October 1999, the Trial Court promulgated its
only by the State through the solicitor general. As a rule, judgment (the ‘Judgment’) in Criminal Case No. 96-246
only the solicitor general may represent the People of the acquitting the accused of the crime of estafa on the
Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
complainant may not undertake such appeal. the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused
and her counsel as well as the public and private
However, the offended party or complainant may prosecutors were present during such promulgation." 39
appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the (Italics supplied)
accused. As such, the present appeal undertaken by the
private offended party relating to the civil aspect of the Further, private prosecutor 40 even signed a copy of the
criminal judgment can no longer be considered a judgment dated October 29, 1999, a signature which in
criminal action per se, wherein the State prosecutes a unequivocal terms signifies notification of the party he
person for an act or omission punishable by law. Instead, represents — herein petitioner.
it becomes a suit analogous to a civil action.
Having been present during the promulgation and
Being in the nature of a civil case, the present intended having been furnished a copy of the judgment at the
appeal involves proceedings brought to the Court of time, private offended party was in effect actually
Appeals from a decision of the RTC in the exercise of the notified of the judgment, and from that time already had
latter’s original jurisdiction. Thus, it should be properly knowledge of the need to appeal it. Thus, the very raison
done by filing a notice of appeal. 37 An appeal by virtue d’être of this Decision is already satisfied: the filing of an
of such notice shall be filed within 15 days from notice of appeal by the said party, only after being notified of the
the judgment or final order appealed from. 38 For the Judgment. As argued by respondent, "did not the public
private offended party, this rule then forecloses the and private prosecutors acquire notice of judgment at its
counting of the period to appeal from the "promulgation" promulgation because of their presence? Notice of the
of the judgment to the accused. judgment may not be defined in any other way . . ." 41

In sum, we hold that an offended party’s appeal of the Petitioner stresses the need for service of the judgment on
civil liability ex delicto of a judgment of acquittal should the offended party. It harps on the fact that — based on
be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or the constitutional, statutory and even jurisprudential edicts —
final order appealed from. To implement this holding, trial judgments must be in writing and with the factual and
courts are hereby directed to cause, in criminal cases, legal bases thereof clearly expressed.
the service of their judgments upon the private offended
parties or their duly appointed counsels — the private Petitioner posits that it can make an appeal only after
prosecutors. This step will enable them to appeal the civil receiving a written copy of the judgment, for "the parties
aspects under the appropriate circumstances. would always need a written reference or a copy
[thereof which] they can review or refer to from time to
General Rule Not time." 42 To rule otherwise would supposedly deny them
due process.
Applicable to the Present Case
We clarify. If petitioner or its counsel had never been
Having laid down the general rule on the appeal of civil notified of the Judgment, then the period for appeal
liabilities ex delicto, we now determine its application to would never have run. True, no law requires the offended
party to attend the promulgation, much less to secure a the finality of the resolution of the case. 51 This principle
copy of the decision on that date. But fiction must yield becomes even more essential in view of the fact that the
to reality. By mere presence, the offended party was criminal aspect has already been adjudicated.
already actually notified of the Decision of acquittal and
should have taken the necessary steps to ensure that a WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the
timely appeal be filed. assailed Order AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Besides, all that petitioner had to do was to file a simple SO ORDERED.

notice of appeal — a brief statement of its intention to
elevate the trial court’s Decision to the CA. There was no Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
reason why it could not have done so within 15 days after
actually knowing the adverse judgment during the
promulgation. 43 Parties and their counsels are presumed
to be vigilant in protecting their interests and must take
the necessary remedies without delay and without resort
to technicalities.

Appeal Not Part

of Due Process

It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a

natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be
exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions
of law authorizing its exercise. 44 Hence, its requirements
must be strictly complied with. 45 The failure of petitioner
to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, thus
rendering the judgment final and executory, is not a
denial of due process. It might have lost its right to
appeal, but it was not denied its day in court.chanrob1es
virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

It would be incorrect to perceive the procedural

requirements of the rules on appeal as merely harmless
and trivial technicalities that can be discarded. 46
Indeed, deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. 47
"The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to
appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the
orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where
courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules
need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.
Their observance cannot be left to the whims and
caprices of appellants." 48

Neither has petitioner justified a deviation from an

otherwise stringent rule. Anyone seeking exemption from
the application of the reglementary period for filing an
appeal has the burden of proving the existence of
exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such
deviation. 49

A fundamental precept is that the reglementary periods

under the Rules are to be strictly observed, for they are
indispensable interdictions against needless delay and for
an orderly discharge of judicial business. 50 After
judgment has become final, vested rights are acquired
by the winning party. Just as the losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does
the winning party also have the correlative right to enjoy
 8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO BAYOTAS y With reference to Castillo's criminal liability, there is no
CORDOVA, question. The law is plain. Statutory construction is
unnecessary. Said liability is extinguished.
G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994
The civil liability, however, poses a problem. Such liability
ROMERO, J.: is extinguished only when the death of the offender
In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16, RTC occurs before final judgment. Saddled upon us is the task
Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with of ascertaining the legal import of the term "final
Rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991 judgment." Is it final judgment as contradistinguished from
in a decision penned by Judge Manuel E. Autajay. an interlocutory order? Or, is it a judgment which is final
Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on and executory?
February 4, 1992 at We go to the genesis of the law. The legal precept
the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory contained in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code
arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary heretofore transcribed is lifted from Article 132 of the
to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, Spanish El Codigo Penal de 1870 which, in part, recites:
the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992 La responsabilidad penal se extingue.
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it
required the Solicitor General to file its comment with 1. Por la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penas personales
regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission siempre, y respecto a las pecuniarias, solo cuando a su
of the offense charged. fallecimiento no hubiere recaido sentencia firme.

In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view xxx xxx xxx
that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish
his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense The code of 1870 . . . it will be observed employs the term
charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case of "sentencia firme." What is "sentencia firme" under the old
People v. Sendaydiego 1 insists that the appeal should still statute?
be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by XXVIII Enciclopedia Juridica Española, p. 473, furnishes
the lower court on which the civil liability is based. the ready answer: It says:
Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, SENTENCIA FIRME. La sentencia que adquiere la fuerza
opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that de las definitivas por no haberse utilizado por las partes
the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is litigantes recurso alguno contra ella dentro de los
pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil terminos y plazos legales concedidos al efecto.
penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked
the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo "Sentencia firme" really should be understood as one
and Ocfemia 2 which held that the civil obligation in a which is definite. Because, it is only when judgment is
criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, such that, as Medina y Maranon puts it, the crime is
therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should confirmed — "en condena determinada;" or, in the words
die before final judgment is rendered. of Groizard, the guilt of the accused becomes — "una
verdad legal." Prior thereto, should the accused die,
We are thus confronted with a single issue: Does death of according to Viada, "no hay legalmente, en tal caso, ni
the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish reo, ni delito, ni responsabilidad criminal de ninguna
his civil liability? clase." And, as Judge Kapunan well explained, when a
In the aforementioned case of People v. Castillo, this issue defendant dies before judgment becomes executory,
was settled in the affirmative. This same issue posed "there cannot be any determination by final judgment
therein was phrased thus: Does the death of Alfredo whether or not the felony upon which the civil action
Castillo affect both his criminal responsibility and his civil might arise exists," for the simple reason that "there is no
liability as a consequence of the alleged crime? party defendant." (I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code,
Annotated, p. 421. Senator Francisco holds the same
It resolved this issue thru the following disquisition: view. Francisco, Revised Penal Code, Book One, 2nd ed.,
pp. 859-860)
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the controlling
statute. It reads, in part: The legal import of the term "final judgment" is similarly
reflected in the Revised Penal Code. Articles 72 and 78 of
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — that legal body mention the term "final judgment" in the
Criminal liability is totally extinguished: sense that it is already enforceable. This also brings to
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal mind Section 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court which
penalties; and as to the pecuniary penalties liability states that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the "after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or
offender occurs before final judgment; when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied
or served, or the defendant has expressly waived in Lamberto Torrijos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals 8
writing his right to appeal." ruled differently. In the former, the issue decided by this
court was: Whether the civil liability of one accused of
By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here physical injuries who died before final judgment is
collected funnel down to one positive conclusion: The extinguished by his demise to the extent of barring any
term final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code claim therefore against his estate. It was the contention
means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long as a of the administrator- appellant therein that the death of
judgment has not become executory, it cannot be the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all
truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, in
felony charged against him. view of Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Not that the meaning thus given to final judgment is Code. However, this court ruled therein:
without reason. For where, as in this case, the right to We see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been
institute a separate civil action is not reserved, the extinguished, in view of the provisions of the Civil Code of
decision to be rendered must, of necessity, cover "both the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) that became
the criminal and the civil aspects of the case." People vs. operative eighteen years after the revised Penal Code.
Yusico (November 9, 1942), 2 O.G., No. 100, p. 964. See As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of the Civil
also: People vs. Moll, 68 Phil., 626, 634; Francisco, Criminal Code establishes a civil action for damages on account
Procedure, 1958 ed., Vol. I, pp. 234, 236. Correctly, Judge of physical injuries, entirely separate and distinct from the
Kapunan observed that as "the civil action is based solely criminal action.
on the felony committed and of which the offender
might be found guilty, the death of the offender Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
extinguishes the civil liability." I Kapunan, Revised Penal injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
Code, Annotated, supra. distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
Here is the situation obtaining in the present case: independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
Castillo's criminal liability is out. His civil liability is sought to require only a preponderance of evidence.
be enforced by reason of that criminal liability. But then, if
we dismiss, as we must, the criminal action and let the Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's
civil aspect remain, we will be faced with the anomalous civil action for damages was to be considered instituted
situation whereby we will be called upon to clamp civil together with the criminal action still, since both
liability in a case where the source thereof — criminal proceedings were terminated without final adjudication,
liability — does not exist. And, as was well stated in the civil action of the offended party under Article 33
Bautista, et al. vs. Estrella, et al., CA-G.R. may yet be enforced separately.

No. 19226-R, September 1, 1958, "no party can be found In Torrijos, the Supreme Court held that:
and held criminally liable in a civil suit," which solely would
remain if we are to divorce it from the criminal xxx xxx xxx
proceeding." It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability
This ruling of the Court of Appeals in the Castillo case 3 follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article
was adopted by the Supreme Court in the cases of 89, only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act
People of the Philippines v. Bonifacio Alison, et al., 4 as its only basis. Stated differently, where the civil liability
People of the Philippines v. Jaime Jose, et al. 5 and does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility,
People of the Philippines v. Satorre 6 by dismissing the the extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto
appeal in view of the death of the accused pending extinguishes the former, provided, of course, that death
appeal of said cases. supervenes before final judgment. The said principle does
not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs
As held by then Supreme Court Justice Fernando in the neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a
Alison case: civil contract of purchase and sale. (Emphasis ours)

The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having xxx xxx xxx

been established, and considering that there is as yet no
final judgment in view of the pendency of the appeal, In the above case, the court was convinced that the civil
the criminal and civil liability of the said accused- liability of the accused who was charged with estafa
appellant Alison was extinguished by his death (Art. 89, could likewise trace its genesis to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of
Revised Penal Code; Reyes' Criminal Law, 1971 Rev. Ed., the Civil Code since said accused had swindled the first
p. 717, citing People v. Castillo and Ofemia C.A., 56 O.G. and second vendees of the property subject matter of
4045); consequently, the case against him should be the contract of sale. It therefore concluded:
dismissed. "Consequently, while the death of the accused herein
extinguished his criminal liability including fine, his civil
On the other hand, this Court in the subsequent cases of liability based on the laws of human relations remains."
Buenaventura Belamala v. Marcelino Polinar 7 and
Thus it allowed the appeal to proceed with respect to the action (People and Manuel vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287;
civil liability of the accused, notwithstanding the Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8).
extinction of his criminal liability due to his death pending
appeal of his conviction. When the action is for the recovery of money and the
defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First
To further justify its decision to allow the civil liability to Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the
survive, the court relied on the following ratiocination: manner especially provided in Rule 87 of the Rules of
Since Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 9 requires Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court).
the dismissal of all money claims against the defendant
whose death occurred prior to the final judgment of the The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a
Court of First Instance (CFI), then it can be inferred that money judgment had been rendered against him by the
actions for recovery of money may continue to be heard Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be
on appeal, when the death of the defendant supervenes continued on appeal (Torrijos vs. Court of Appeals, L-
after the CFI had rendered its judgment. In such case, 40336, October 24, 1975; 67 SCRA 394).
explained this tribunal, "the name of the offended party The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for
shall be included in the title of the case as plaintiff- the funds improperly disbursed although he has no
appellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the criminal liability (U.S. vs. Elvina, 24 Phil. 230; Philippine
deceased-accused should be substituted as defendants- National Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil. 583).
appellants."
In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of
It is, thus, evident that as jurisprudence evolved from the appeal of the deceased Sendaydiego insofar as his
Castillo to Torrijos, the rule established was that the criminal liability is concerned, the Court Resolved to
survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over his possible
can be predicated on sources of obligations other than civil liability for the money claims of the Province of
delict. Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts
extinguished together with the criminal action if it were complained of, as if no criminal case had been instituted
solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto. against him, thus making applicable, in determining his
However, the Supreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego, civil liability, Article 30 of the Civil Code . . . and, for that
et al. 10 departed from this long-established principle of purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this Court within
law. In this case, accused Sendaydiego was charged ten (10) days of the names and addresses of the
with and convicted by the lower court of malversation decedent's heirs or whether or not his estate is under
thru falsification of public documents. Sendaydiego's administration and has a duly appointed judicial
death supervened during the pendency of the appeal of administrator. Said heirs or administrator will be
his conviction. substituted for the deceased insofar as the civil action for
the civil liability is concerned (Secs. 16 and 17, Rule 3,
This court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss Rules of Court).
Sendaydiego's appeal but only to the extent of his
criminal liability. His civil liability was allowed to survive Succeeding cases 11 raising the identical issue have
although it was clear that such claim thereon was maintained adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego; in
exclusively dependent on the criminal action already other words, they were a reaffirmance of our
extinguished. The legal import of such decision was for abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liability solely
the court to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction anchored on the criminal (civil liability ex delicto) is
over the entire appeal, passing upon the correctness of extinguished upon dismissal of the entire appeal due to
Sendaydiego's conviction despite dismissal of the criminal the demise of the accused.
action, for the purpose of determining if he is civilly liable. But was it judicious to have abandoned this old ruling? A
In doing so, this Court issued a Resolution of July 8, 1977 re- examination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us
stating thus: to revert to the old ruling.
The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the To restate our resolution of July 8, 1977 in Sendaydiego:
civil liability survived Sendaydiego because his death The resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in the
occurred after final judgment was rendered by the Court criminal action can proceed irrespective of the latter's
of First Instance of Pangasinan, which convicted him of extinction due to death of the accused pending appeal
three complex crimes of malversation through falsification of his conviction, pursuant to Article 30 of the Civil Code
and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total and Section 21, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
sum of P61,048.23 (should be P57,048.23).
Article 30 of the Civil Code provides:
The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly
instituted with the criminal action in the absence of When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil
express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal
1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court). The civil action for the proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the
civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal
civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be concomitant extinction of the civil liability. Mors Omnia
sufficient to prove the act complained of. Solvi. Death dissolves all things.

Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend In sum, in pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from
support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text is crime, the final determination of the criminal liability is a
there a grant of authority to continue exercising condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil
appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil action, such that when the criminal action is extinguished
by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal
thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil
liability ex delicto when his death supervenes during liability springs out of and is dependent upon facts which,
appeal. What Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an
separate civil action which may be brought to demand inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to
civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently be declared and enforced in the criminal proceeding.
of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal This is to be distinguished from that which is
proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which
civil case, the quantum of evidence needed to prove the refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does
criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with not draw its life from a
civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidence and criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July
not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing or 8, 1977, however, failed to take note of this fundamental
invoking Article 30 to justify the survival of the civil action distinction when it allowed the survival of the civil action
despite extinction of the criminal would in effect merely for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by treating the
beg the question of whether civil liability ex delicto same as a separate civil action referred to under Article
survives upon extinction of the criminal action due to 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial
death of the accused during appeal of his conviction. pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil
This is because whether asserted in action to an independent one such as that
the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil contemplated under Article 30.
liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the Ironically however, the main decision in Sendaydiego did
accused while his conviction is on appeal. Article 89 of not apply Article 30, the resolution of July 8, 1977
the Revised Penal Code is clear on this matter: notwithstanding. Thus, it was held in the main decision:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Sendaydiego's appeal will be resolved only for the
Criminal liability is totally extinguished: purpose of showing his criminal liability which is the basis
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal of the civil liability for which his estate would be liable. 13
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor In other words, the Court, in resolving the issue of his civil
is extinguished only when the death of the offender liability, concomitantly made a determination on whether
occurs before final judgment; Sendaydiego, on the basis of evidenced adduced, was
xxx xxx xxx indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing
the offense charged. Thus, it upheld Sendaydiego's
However, the ruling in Sendaydiego deviated from the conviction and pronounced the same as the source of
expressed intent of Article 89. It allowed claims for civil his civil liability. Consequently, although Article 30 was not
liability ex delicto to survive by ipso facto treating the civil applied in the final determination of Sendaydiego's civil
action impliedly instituted with the criminal, as one filed liability, there was a reopening of the criminal action
under Article 30, as though no criminal proceedings had already extinguished which served as basis for
been filed but merely a separate civil action. This had the Sendaydiego's civil liability. We reiterate: Upon death of
effect of converting such claims from one which is the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the
dependent on the outcome of the criminal action to an criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no
entirely new and separate one, the prosecution of which longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil
does not even necessitate the filing of criminal action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex
proceedings. 12 One would be hard put to pinpoint the delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
statutory authority for such a transformation. It is to be criminal.
borne in mind that in recovering civil liability ex delicto,
the same has perforce to be determined in the criminal Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was also invoked
action, rooted as it is in the court's pronouncement of the to serve as another basis for the Sendaydiego resolution
guilt or innocence of the accused. This is but to render of July 8, 1977. In citing Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of
fealty to the intendment of Article 100 of the Revised Court, the Court made the inference that civil actions of
Penal Code which provides that "every person criminally the type involved in Sendaydiego consist of money
liable for a felony is also civilly liable." In such cases, claims, the recovery of which may be continued on
extinction of the criminal action due to death of the appeal if defendant dies pending appeal of his
accused pending appeal inevitably signifies the
conviction by holding his estate liable therefor. Hence, illness, judgments for money and claim arising from
the Court's conclusion: contracts, expressed or implied. It is clear that money
claims arising from delict do not form part of this exclusive
"When the action is for the recovery of money" "and the enumeration. Hence, there could be no legal basis in (1)
defendant dies before final judgment in the court of First treating a civil action ex delicto as an ordinary
Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the contractual money claim referred to in Section 21, Rule 3
manner especially provided" in Rule 87 of the Rules of of the Rules of Court and (2) allowing it to survive by filing
Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). a claim therefor before the estate of the deceased
The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a accused. Rather, it should be extinguished upon
money judgment had been rendered against him by the extinction of the criminal action engendered by the
Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be death of the accused pending finality of his conviction.
continued on appeal. Accordingly, we rule: if the private offended party, upon
Sadly, reliance on this provision of law is misplaced. From extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover
the standpoint of procedural law, this course taken in damages from the same act or omission complained of,
Sendaydiego cannot be sanctioned. As correctly he must subject to Section 1, Rule 111 16 (1985 Rules on
observed by Justice Regalado: Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil
action, this time predicated not on the felony previously
xxx xxx xxx charged but on other sources of obligation. The source of
obligation upon which the separate civil action is
I do not, however, agree with the justification advanced premised determines against whom the same shall be
in both Torrijos and Sendaydiego which, relying on the enforced.
provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, drew
the strained implication If the same act or omission complained of also arises from
quasi- delict or may, by provision of law, result in an injury
therefrom that where the civil liability instituted together to person or property (real or personal), the separate civil
with the criminal liabilities had already passed beyond action must be filed against the executor or administrator
the judgment of the then Court of First Instance (now the 17 of the estate of the accused pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule
Regional Trial Court), the Court of Appeals can continue 87 of the Rules of Court:
to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereover despite the
extinguishment of the component criminal liability of the
deceased. This pronouncement, which has been
followed in the Court's judgments subsequent and Sec. 1. Actions which may and which may not be
consonant to Torrijos and Sendaydiego, should be set brought against executor or administrator. — No action
aside and abandoned as being clearly erroneous and upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or
unjustifiable. interest thereon shall be commenced against the
executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or
Said Section 21 of Rule 3 is a rule of civil procedure in personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate,
ordinary civil actions. There is neither authority nor or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover
justification for its application in criminal procedure to civil damages for an injury to person or property, real or
actions instituted together with and as part of criminal personal, may be commenced against him.
actions. Nor is there any authority in law for the summary
conversion from the latter category of an ordinary civil This is in consonance with our ruling in Belamala 18 where
action upon the death of the offender. . . . we held that, in recovering damages for injury to persons
thru an independent civil action based on Article 33 of
Moreover, the civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal the Civil Code, the same must be filed against the
proceeding for recovery of civil liability ex delicto can executor or administrator of the estate of deceased
hardly be categorized as an ordinary money claim such accused and not against the estate under Sec. 5, Rule 86
as that referred to in Sec. 21, Rule 3 enforceable before because this rule explicitly limits the claim to those for
the estate of the deceased accused. funeral expenses, expenses for the last sickness of the
decedent, judgment for money and claims arising from
Ordinary money claims referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 contract, express or implied. Contractual money claims,
must be viewed in light of the provisions of Section 5, Rule we stressed, refers only to purely personal obligations
86 involving claims against the estate, which in other than those which have their source in delict or tort.
Sendaydiego was held liable for Sendaydiego's civil
liability. "What are contemplated in Section 21 of Rule 3, Conversely, if the same act or omission complained of
in relation to Section 5 of Rule 86, 14 are contractual also arises from contract, the separate civil action must
money claims while the claims involved in civil liability ex be filed against the estate of the accused, pursuant to
delicto may include even the restitution of personal or Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
real property." 15 Section 5, Rule 86 provides an exclusive
enumeration of what claims may be filed against the From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling
estate. These are: funeral expenses, expenses for the last herein:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior
to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only
the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on
the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in
senso strictiore."

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives

notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict. 19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
other sources of obligation from which the civil liability
may arise as a result of the same act or omission:

a) Law 20

b) Contracts

c) Quasi-contracts

d) ...

e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number

2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued
but only by way of filing a separate civil action and
subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
depending on the source of obligation upon which the
same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a

forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
offended party instituted together therewith the civil
action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155
21 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right by
prescription. 22

Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold

that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his
criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the
act complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal
is hereby dismissed without qualification.

WHEREFORE, the appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is

DISMISSED with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.
9. People v Pedro Abungan upon him wounds on the different parts of his body x x x
G.R. No. 136843. September 28, 2000.* injuries [which] directly caused his death, to the damage
and prejudice of his heirs.
Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Death of the accused “Contrary to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.”4
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
With the assistance of Atty. Simplicio Sevilleja, appellant
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon;
pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment on April 30,
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
1993.5 After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered the
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
assailed August 24, 1998 Decision, the dispositive portion
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
of which reads as follows:
than delict.—Applying this provision, the Court in People
“WHEREFORE, his guilt having been established beyond
v. Bayotas made the following pronouncements: “1.
reasonable doubt, the [Appellant] Pedro Abungan is
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
PERPETUA and such penalties accessory thereto as may
based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in
be provided for by law.
this regard, the death of the accused prior to final
The x x x [appellant] is hereby further ordered to
judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
indemnify the heirs of Camilo Dirilo, Sr. in the amount of
liability directly arising from and based solely on the
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and to pay the
offense committed, i.e. , civil liability ex delicto in senso
costs.”6
strictiore.’ ” “2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if Appellant, through counsel, filed the Notice of Appeal on
the same may also be predicated on a source of September 14, 1998. On January 9, 1999, he was
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code committed to the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa.
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which On October 26, 1999, he filed the Appellant’s
the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or Brief 7 before this Court. The Office of the Solicitor
omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) x x x x General, on the other hand, submitted the Appellee’s
x x x x x e) Quasi-delicts. Brief8 on February 4, 2000. The case was deemed
submitted for resolution on June 5, 2000, when the Court
Same; Same; Death of the accused pending received the Manifestation of appellant stating that he
appeal results in the dismissal of the criminal case against would not file a reply brief.
him, and the lower court’s decision becomes In a letter dated August 7, 2000,9 however, Joselito A.
ineffectual.—Moreover, we hold that the death of Fajardo, assistant director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Appellant Abungan would result in the dismissal of the informed the Court that Appellant Abungan had died on
criminal case against him. Necessarily, the lower court’s July 19, 2000 at the NBP Hospital. Attached to the letter
Decision—finding him guilty and sentencing him to suffer was Abungan’s Death Certificate.
reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the
Issue
deceased—becomes ineffectual.
The only issue before us is the effect of Appellant
Abungan’s death on the case and on the appeal.
PANGANIBAN, J. :

This Court’s Ruling

The death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to
The death of appellant on July 19, 2000 during the
the finality of conviction extinguished his criminal and civil
pendency of his appeal extinguished his criminal as well
liabilities arising from the delict or crime. Hence, the
as his civil liability, based solely on delict (civil liability ex
criminal case against him, not the appeal, should be
delicto ).
dismissed.
The Case and the Facts
Main Issue: Effect of Appellant’s Death
Before us is an appeal filed by Pedro Abungan assailing
the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, During Appeal
Pangasinan, Branch 50,2 in Criminal Case No. V-0447, in The consequences of appellant’s death are provided for
which he was convicted of murder, sentenced in Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, which reads
to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay P50,000 as as follows:
indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. “Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.—
In an Information3 dated March 9, 1993, Prosecutor I Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
Benjamin R. Bautista charged appellant, together with 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal
Randy Pascua and Ernesto Ragonton, Jr. (both at large), penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor
with murder committed as follows: is extinguished only when the death of the offender
“That on or about the 4th day of August 1992, at occurs before final judgment;
Barangay Capulaan, Municipality of Villasis, Province of xxx xxx x x x”
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, Applying this provision, the Court in People v.
confederating and mutually helping one another, armed Bayotas10made the following pronouncements:
with long firearms, with intent to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and superior strength, did then 1. “1.Death of the accused pending appeal of his
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
assault and shoot Camilo Dirilo, [Sr.] y Pajarito, inflicting well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
 opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, ‘the Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-
death of the accused prior to final judgment Reyes, JJ., concur.
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on Judgment set aside, case dismissed.
the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex Notes.—Death of an accused pending appeal
delicto in senso strictiore.’ ” extinguishes both the criminal liability and the civil liability
2. “2.Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives based thereon. (Fonacier vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA
notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if 655 [1994])
the same may also be predicated on a source Settled is the rule that the judgment of acquittal
of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of extinguishes the civil liability of the accused for damages
the Civil Code enumerates these other sources only when it includes a declaration that the fact from
of obligation from which the civil liability may which the civil liability might arise did not exist. (Sesbreño
arise as a result of the same act or omission: vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 345[1996])

While we agree with the doctrinal ruling in Bayotas,

a)Law we believe that the disposition therein dismissing the
b)Contracts appeal might have resulted from an oversight. In doing
c)Quasi-contracts so, the Court was effectively affirming the trial court’s
d)Delicts Decision, which had found Bayotas criminally and civilly
e)Quasi-delicts10 liable. Such disposition is clearly contrary to the discussion
in the body of the Bayotas Decision quoted earlier in this
“3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Resolution that his death extinguished his criminal as well
Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be as civil liabilities based on delict. Indeed, the only logical
pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action consequence of the extinguishment of his criminal and
and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on civil liabilities was the dismissal of the case itself, not of the
Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil appeal.
action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
depending on the source of obligation upon which the
same is based as explained above.
“4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private
offended party instituted together therewith the civil
action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal case, conformably with the provisions of Article
1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right by
prescription.”

In the present case, it is clear that, following the above

disquisition in Bayotas, the death of appellant
extinguished his criminal liability. Moreover, because he
died during the pendency of the appeal and before the
finality of the judgment against him, his civil liability arising
from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto ) was also
extinguished. It must be added, though, that his civil
liability may be based on sources of obligation other than
delict. For this reason, the victims may file a separate civil
action against his estate, as may be warranted by law
and procedural rules.
Moreover, we hold that the death of Appellant
Abungan would result in the dismissal of the criminal case
against him.11 Necessarily, the lower court’s Decision—
finding him guilty and sentencing him to suffer reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased—
becomes ineffectual.
WHEREFORE, the criminal case (No. V-0447, RTC of
Villasis, Pangasinan) against Pedro Abungan is hereby
DISMISSED and the appealed Decision SET ASIDE.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
10. DIONISIO L. TORRES and ENRICO M. sent a letter7 to the Mayor formally protesting the leveling
ALVAREZ, petitioners, and reclamation of the submerged portion of its property
vs. and demanding that the Mayor desist from continuing
HON. FRANCIS F. GARCHITORENA, HON. CATALINO R. with said reclamation. On October 31, 1997, the Mayor
CASTANEDA and and representatives of SRI had a conference during
HON. GREGORY S. ONG (in their capacities as Chairman which the Mayor informed SRI that he had already spent
and Members, P1,000.000,00 for the reclamation and offered to help SRI
respectively of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan) in connection with its other projects in Cavite provided
SUSANA REALTY, INC. and PEOPLE OF THE that SRI will no longer file the suit to enjoin the
PHILIPPINES, respondents. reclamation. SRI requested for the deferment of the
reclamation project until November 7, 1997 to enable it
G. R. No. 153666 December 27, 2002 to study the offer of the Mayor. However, SRI learned that
in the interim, five families of squatters had already
DECISION
occupied portions of the reclaimed area; and that more
CALLEJO, SR., J.: squatters were due to arrive.

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari with a plea for On January 7, 1998, SRI filed a petition8 with the Regional
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order Trial Court for prohibition with a plea for injunctive relief
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as against the Mayor, the Municipal Building Official and
amended, filed with the Court on June 11, 2002 for the Municipal Engineer Enrico Alvarez to enjoin them from
nullification of the following resolutions of the reclaiming and leveling the property and for damages
Sandiganbayan, to wit: and attorney’s fees. The case was docketed as Special
Civil Case No. N-6639. In their Answer to the petition,
1. Resolution dated January 7, 2002 denying petitioners’ Torres and Alvarez alleged inter alia that they were not
omnibus motion to quash the Information and/or to aware that the subject property was titled in the name of
suspend trial (with opposition to motion to suspend SRI and that the records of the Assessor’s Office failed to
accused pendete lite) in SB Criminal Case No. 24864;1 show that the property had been declared for taxation
purposes under the name of SRI. The Mayor insisted that
2. Resolution dated March 20, 2002 preventively SRI abandoned the property9 and justified his acts on the
suspending petitioners for a maximum of ninety (90) ground that the reclamation of the property was for the
days;2 socialized housing program of his constituents.
3. Resolution dated April 4, 2002 denying petitioners’ On April 16, 1998, SRI filed with the Ombudsman a
motion for reconsideration of the January 7, 2002 criminal complaint against Torres and Alvarez for violation
Resolution;3 and of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (the Anti-Graft and
4. Resolution dated May 22, 2002 denying petitioners’ Corrupt Practices Act). After due preliminary
motion for reconsideration of the April 4, 2002 Resolution.4 investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause
against the two for violation of said law. He filed with the
The antecedent facts are as follows: Sandiganbayan an Information dated August 27, 1998 for
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 which
Susana Realty, Incorporated (SRI for brevity) is the reads:
registered owner of two (2) parcels of land located at
Noveleta, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Undersigned Graft Investigation Officer II of the Office of
Nos. (T-5344) RT-197325 and (T-5345) RT-197336 issued on the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, hereby accuses
May 15, 1952. The said titles cancelled Original Certificate MAYOR DIONISIO TORRES and MUNICIPAL ENGINEER
of Title Nos. 2320 and 137 in 1934 and 1911, respectively. ENRICO M. ALVAREZ, of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
These parcels of land are adjacent to the sea and over 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
time portions thereof were submerged by sea water. SRI Practices Act, as amended, committed as follows:
installed Domingo Fernandez as its caretaker on the
property. That on or about October 10, 1997, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Noveleta,
On October 10, 1997, Mayor Dionisio Torres of Noveleta, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
Cavite caused the leveling and reclamation of the of the Honorable Court, above-named accused
submerged portion of SRI’s property for the relocation of DIONISIO TORRES and ENRICO M. ALVAREZ, public officers
displaced squatters from Tirona, Cavite who were living being then the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Engineer,
along river banks and esteros. Domingo Fernandez respectively of Noveleta, Cavite, committing the crime
protested to the Mayor informing him that his employer herein charged in relation to and taking advantage of
owned the property being levelled and reclaimed at the their official functions and through evident bad faith and
instance of the Mayor. However, the latter ignored the gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there wilfully,
protests of Fernandez and continued with the leveling unlawfully and feloniously cause the filling up of a
and reclamation of the property. On October 16, 1997, submerged portion of a lot owned by and registered in
representatives of SRI conferred with the Mayor and the name of Susana Realty Corp., without first verifying
furnished him with copies of its titles over the property. The the existence of its owner and despite showing proof of its
SRI had the property surveyed to confirm that the portions ownership, with the intention to reclaim it for the
of the land reclaimed by the Mayor were within the municipality’s housing program to the damage and
perimeter of its titled property. On October 27, 1997, SRI
prejudice of the registered owner as squatters now the Sandiganbayan another motion to suspend the
occupy the area. proceedings in Criminal Case No. 24864 on the ground of
the existence of a prejudicial question, namely, the
CONTRARY TO LAW.10 pendency of Civil Case No. 7160, but the court denied
said motion in open court on August 1, 2001. The
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 24864.
Sandiganbayan proceeded with the arraignment of
On September 1, 1998, the Republic of the Philippines, Torres and Alvarez. Both entered a plea of not guilty.
through the Solicitor General, filed with the Regional Trial
The prosecution in Criminal Case No. 24864 filed a motion
Court (RTC) of Cavite City a complaint against SRI and
with the Sandiganbayan for the mandatory suspension
the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the reversion of the
pendente lite of Torres and Alvarez. On September 13,
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 5344
2001, the two filed an omnibus motion for the quashal of
and 5345 issued in favor of SRI. The case was docketed as
the information on the ground that the facts alleged
Civil Case No. 7160. The Republic alleged inter alia that
therein do not constitute the offense of violation of
said property had been ascertained by the Department
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and hence, there was no legal
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as part of
basis for their suspension from office pendente lite. They
the Manila Bay per Classification Map 2736 dated
further prayed that should their motion to quash the
February 21, 1972. Hence, it formed part of the
information be denied, the criminal proceedings be
inalienable mass of the public domain owned by the
suspended on the ground of the existence of a
State. The Republic prayed that after due proceedings
prejudicial question in Civil Case No. 7160. Torres and
judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:
Alvarez claimed that the issue in Civil Case No. 7160 for
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after trial, this reversion filed by the State constituted a prejudicial
Honorable Court render judgment: question under Sections 6 and 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedures, as amended, warranting the
1. Declaring the reversion of the subject parcels of land suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
into mass of inalienable public domain; 24864.13 The prosecution opposed the omnibus motion of
Torres and Alvarez. On January 7, 2002, the
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel any existing Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion
title over the said properties; to quash filed by Torres and Alvarez.14 The latter filed a
3. Enjoining the Register of Deeds from issuing any title motion for reconsideration of said resolution dated
over the subject properties. January 27, 2002 but the Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution dated April 21, 2002 denying said motion.15
Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.11 Earlier, the Court issued a Resolution dated March 20,
2002 granting the motion of the prosecution for the
In the meantime, negotiations for an amicable suspension of Torres and Alvarez pendente lite. Torres and
settlement ensued. Torres wrote a letter to SRI dated Alvarez filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
March 3, 1999 offering to acquire a portion of the March 20, 2002 resolution. On May 22, 2002, the Court
reclaimed area with an area of 350 square meters at the issued a Resolution denying the motion of Torres and
price of P100.00 per square meter, excluding the 260- Alvarez.
square meter portion of the property developed as a
road right of way, without prejudice to the outcome of Hence, this petition.
the prohibition case filed by SRI.12 However, no settlement Torres and Alvarez (petitioners, for brevity) allege that:
materialized between the parties. Torres and Alvarez filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman a motion for A. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. 24864 but the OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated January 5, 2001 JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO
denying said motion. Earlier, Torres and Alvarez filed with QUASH THE INFORMATION DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
the Sandiganbayan a motion dated December 23, 2000 SHOWING THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS, IN FACT
for the suspension of the proceedings in said criminal AND IN LAW, TO CHARGE PETITIONERS OF VIOLATING SEC.
case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial 3(E) OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
question in Civil Case No. 7160. On January 15, 2001, the (R.A. 3019).
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion
for suspension of the proceedings. Upon receipt of said B. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
resolution, Torres and Alvarez filed with the OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
Sandiganbayan a motion for a reconsideration thereof. JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO
However, on March 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a SUSPEND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL
resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS FOR A
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE.
Torres and Alvarez forthwith filed a petition for certiorari
on April 25, 2001 with this Court for the nullification of the C. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
March 9, 2001 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. The OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
case was docketed as G.R. No. 147726. On May 16, 2001, JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE DEFENSES RAISED BY THE
the Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for PETITIONERS ARE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS THAT SHOULD BE
certiorari. On June 1, 2001, Torres and Alvarez filed with PROPERLY RAISED DURING THE TRIAL PROPER DESPITE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
D. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE case, without prejudice to their right to raise the question
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF on appeal if final judgment is rendered against
JURISDICTION IN GRANTING THE PROSECUTION’S REQUEST them.17 Moreover, the petitioners failed to prove that the
FOR THE SUSPENSION PENDENTE LITE OF THE PETITIONERS Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THERE IS amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the
NO SUFFICIENT BASIS, IN FACT AND IN LAW, FOR SUCH motion to quash.
SUSPENSION.16
Fundamental is the rule that a criminal complaint or
Petitioners aver that the Sandiganbayan committed information must state every single fact necessary to
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of constitute the offense charged; otherwise, the
jurisdiction in denying their motion to quash the information or complaint may be quashed on the ground
information on their claim that the material averments that it charges no offense. If an accused files a motion to
contained therein do not constitute the offense of quash an information on this ground, he thereby
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. They insist hypothetically admits the truth of the averments therein.
that the information specifically alleges that the The test in resolving a motion to quash on the ground that
submerged portion of private respondent’s titled property the information charges no offense is whether the
is actually part of the foreshore area of Noveleta, Cavite material facts alleged in the complaint or information will
as alleged in the complaint for reversion of the Republic establish the essential elements of the offense charged as
of the Philippines in Civil Case No. 7160 filed with the RTC defined in the law.18 The trial court may not consider a
against respondent SRI. The Republic’s claim in said civil situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal
case is based on the Verification of Status of Land issued complaint or information. Facts which constitute the
by the DENR stating that the property forms part of the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the
public domain. Petitioners likewise argue that even if information must be proved by them during trial. Such
inceptually, the submerged portion was indeed SRI’s facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds
property, the same became part of the shore and of the for a motion to quash the information on the ground that
public domain, as a consequence of its invasion by the the material averments do not constitute the offense.
sea. This natural phenomenon is a de facto case of Although the court may consider facts or circumstances
eminent domain and not subject to indemnity. Petitioners extraneous to the information or complaint if admitted by
further contend that since the material allegations in the the prosecution or not denied by it, this rule does not
information do not constitute the offense of violation of apply because in this case, the prosecution even
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, there is no legal basis for their opposed the motion to quash of the petitioners, insisting
suspension from office pendente lite. Moreover, since SRI that contrary to the latter’s claim, the disputed area is
is not the owner of the submerged portion of its titled private property covered by titles issued in the name of
property, it has no proprietary interest over the same and SRI.
hence cannot be deemed to have sustained any
damage or injury by reason of the reclamation of subject Under the information, the disputed area is alleged to be
property an element of the crime penalized by Section the submerged portion of the lot owned by SRI. Thus, in
3(e) of R.A. 3019. resolving the motion to quash on the ground that the
allegations in the information do not constitute an
For its part, the Sandiganbayan ruled under its assailed offense, said factual allegations must be hypothetically
Resolutions that the precise nature of the subject admitted, and the subject property under the information
property is a factual issue which should properly be must be considered private property of SRI.
ventilated during trial of the criminal case on its merits;
hence, a motion to quash the information on the ground The barefaced fact that under the information, the subject
that the material averments thereof do not constitute a property is alleged to be submerged in sea water does
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 is improper. not necessarily make the said property foreshore land
Furthermore, the petitioners had already been arraigned and hence part of the public domain that can be
before they filed their motion to quash. Thus, the quashal reclaimed by the Municipality of Noveleta, Cavite.
of the information could no longer be made.
In People vs. Melitona Alagad, et al.,19 we held that
SRI on the other hand insists that the submerged area submerged land is not necessarily foreshore land. Where
forms part of its private property, and that petitioner the rise in water level is due to ordinary action of nature,
Torres is estopped from claiming that said area is rainfall for instance, the portions inundated thereby are
foreshore land because in his letter to SRI dated March 3, not considered part of the bed or basin of the body of
1999, Torres offered to buy a portion of the submerged water in question. Said portions are outside of public
area, thus implicitly recognizing that said area belongs to domain and hence, capable of registration as private
SRI. property. We defined foreshore land in said case as part
of the land which is between the high and low water and
The contention of petitioners has no merit. left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides. If the
submergence of the land is due to precipitation, it does
Case law has it that a resolution of the Sandiganbayan not become a foreshore land despite its proximity to the
denying a motion to quash the information is an waters. The issue of whether the submerged property is
interlocutory order and hence, not appealable. Nor can foreshore land or not is an issue of fact, which can be
it be the subject of certiorari. The remedy available to resolved by the Sandiganbayan only after trial. But for the
petitioners after their motion to quash was denied by the present, the submerged portion is titled to SRI. Until the
Sandiganbayan was to proceed with the trial of the subject property is declared foreshore land by a
competent court in an appropriate proceeding and the There will still remain eight (8) councilors who can meet as
title of SRI over said property is declared null and void, the the Sangguniang Bayan. The President or his alter ego,
subject property remains the private property of SRI, and the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, will surely
the latter is entitled to the possession thereof. know how to deal with the problem of filling up the
temporary vacant positions of mayor, vice-mayor and six
Petitioners contend that the Sandiganbayan committed councilors in accordance with the provisions of the Local
grave abuse of discretion in ordering their suspension Government Code, Republic Act No. 7160. xxx21
from office pendente lite without the conduct of a full-
blown hearing. By so doing, the petitioners argue, the We are in full accord with the disquisitions and
people of Noveleta, Cavite were deprived of the services ratiocinations of the Sandiganbayan. The suspension
of the petitioners as the duly elected Mayor and pendente lite by the Sandiganbayan of petitioners who
appointed Municipal Engineer. The Sandiganbayan for its were accorded full opportunity to ventilate the issue of
part ruled on petitioners’ contentions, thus: the insufficiency of the information for said court, through
the filing of pleadings, is inevitable and unassailable,
Finally, as to the submission of the accused that a full- considering our affirmation of the validity of the
blown pre-suspension hearing be first conducted before information filed against them.
the resolution of the motion to suspend accused, suffice it
to state that the requisite pre-suspension hearing is On the last issue, petitioners contend that it behooved
precisely intended solely to determine the applicability of the Sandiganbayan to have suspended the proceedings
Section 13, of R.A. 3019, and this we now do. What is pending final judgment in Civil Case No. 7160 by the RTC
required only is that the accused be given a fair and on their claim that the issue of ownership over the
adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the property subject is so intimately related to the issues
criminal proceedings against him (People vs. Albano, et raised in the civil case and is determinative of their guilt or
al. 163 SCRA 511) and this requirement has been innocence of the crime charged in Criminal Case No.
complied with when the accused was heard on the 24864. A judgment of the RTC in Civil Case No. 7160 that
matter through various pleadings as heretofore stated. the property subject of the charge before the
The pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandiganbayan is foreshore land will belie its claim that its
Albano is clear on this point, thus: proprietary right over the subject property had been
violated by petitioners when they had the subject
Considering the mandatory suspension of the accused property reclaimed; hence, SRI cannot claim that it
under a valid information, the law does not contemplate sustained damages or injury, an essential element of the
a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the crime defined in Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. The
evidence of culpability against him, (2) the gravity of the Sandiganbayan, for its part, held that:
offense charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in
office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to Regardless of whether or not the Republic wins the suit for
the safety and integrity of the records and other reversion of the property subject of the action herein, to
evidence, so that a court can have a valid basis in the State, and until the reversion itself is ordered the
evaluating the advisability of his suspension pending the present registered owner of the property (Susana Realty)
trial proper of the case filed against him. Besides, a has rights flowing from ownership and possession which
requirement that the guilt of the accused must first be public officers have a duty to respect and protect.
established in the pre-suspension proceeding before trial
proper can proceed would negate the ruling of the court The pendency of the reversion case, CA. G.R. SP No.
that the ‘xxx mandatory suspension .... requires at the 54494 before the Court of Appeals entitled ‘Republic vs.
same time that the hearing be expeditious, and not Susana Realty, et al.’ is of no moment to these
unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt proceedings since this does not diminish the rights and
suspension envisioned by the Act’ and make the trial obligation with regard to the property at the time of the
proper a surplusage.’ xxx.20 incident in question.’22

Likewise untenable is the contention of the accused that The Sandiganbayan further pointed out that petitioners
should they be suspended, the people of the Municipality first filed a motion to suspend proceedings on December
of Noveleta, Cavite would be deprived of the services of 3, 2000 and that the same was denied per its Resolution
the man they elected as Municipal Mayor and their dated January 15, 2001. The petitioners filed a second
Municipal Engineer. To begin with, nobody is motion to suspend proceedings dated June 11, 2001,
indispensable in a public office. There will always be other which motion was denied in open court on August 1,
persons who can be appointed to the temporarily 2001 after which, petitioners were duly arraigned.
vacated offices and the law has seen to that in many Petitioners again prayed in their omnibus motion for the
instances with due regard to the situation cited by the suspension of the proceedings, which motion was in
accused therein. effect a second motion for reconsideration of the
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated January 7, 2002
The Supreme Court in the case of Bunye vs. Escareal, 226 without leave of court. In its exasperation, the
SCRA 332, upheld the order of suspension issued against Sandiganbayan declared that "the record is replete with
the accused and disposed of this issue in this wise: efforts of the accused to delay the proceedings herein.
No more. There is nothing to reconsider.23
The fear of the petitioners that the municipal government
of Muntinlupa will be paralyzed for ninety (90) days when SRI contends that the action for reversion filed by the
they (petitioners) are preventively suspended is remote. State in Civil Case No. 7160 does not constitute a
prejudicial question to the proceedings before the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
Sandiganbayan under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at
Rules on Criminal Procedure because the said action was any time before the prosecution rests.
filed after the institution of the criminal action before the
Respondent SB and because: Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of
a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil
Even assuming the contrary were true, petitioners cannot action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
still escape culpability. Notwithstanding the action for issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the
reversion, the fact remains that Susana Realty is the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
owner of the subject properties at the time petitioners criminal action may proceed.
committed the acts complained of. The fact remains that
Susana Realty was thereby injured by their acts. The Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is
action for reversion will not obliterate such fact. There is understood in law as that which must precede the
no necessity therefore to await the outcome of the criminal action and which requires a decision before a
reversion suit before the criminal charges against final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action
petitioners should proceed.24 with which said question is closely connected. The civil
action must be instituted prior to the institution of the
We agree with the Respondents. Under Rule 65 of the criminal action. In this case, the Information was filed with
1997 Rules of Civil Procedures, as amended, petitioners the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil Case
must show that they had no plain, speedy and adequate No. 7160 filed by the State with the RTC in Civil Case No.
remedy in the ordinary course of law against their 7160. Thus, no prejudicial question exists.
perceived grievance.25 Petitioners are not entitled to a
writ of certiorari if they seek said relief to make up for the Besides, a final judgment of the RTC in Civil Case No. 7160
loss, through their oversight or omission, of their right to file declaring the property as foreshore land and hence,
their petition for certiorari within the period therefor. The inalienable, is not determinative of the guilt or innocence
record shows that petitioners’ motion to suspend of the petitioners in the criminal case. It bears stressing
proceedings had already been denied by the that unless and until declared null and void by a court of
Sandiganbayan on January 15, 2001. Petitioners’ motion competent jurisdiction in an appropriate action
to suspend proceedings dated June 11, 2002, which was therefor,29the titles of SRI over the subject property are
for all intents and purposes a motion for reconsideration valid. SRI is entitled to the possession of the properties
of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated January covered by said titles.30 It cannot be illegally deprived of
15, 2001, was denied by Sandiganbayan on August 1, its possession of the property by petitioners in the guise of
2001. However, petitioners did not file a petition for a reclamation until final judgment is rendered declaring
certiorari with the Court within the period therefor. the property covered by said titles as foreshore land.
Indeed, petitioners filed an omnibus motion with leave of
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
court on September 13, 2001, praying inter alia for the
DENIED. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan subject of
suspension of the proceedings. The omnibus motion was
the petition are AFFIRMED.
denied by the respondent court on April 4, 2002. It was
only on June 11, 2002 that petitioners filed the petition at SO ORDERED.
bench. By then, the period for them to file the same had
long lapsed. Why the petitioners waited for almost a year
from August 1, 2001 to file their petition for certiorari with
the Court they did not bother to justify. It bears stressing
that the rule on prejudicial questions was conceived to
afford parties an expeditious and just disposition of
cases.26 Indeed, the amendment under the Rules on
Criminal Procedure was designed to avert the deleterious
practice foisted on the judicial system by unscrupulous
parties to derail the placid flow of criminal cases. The
Court has said that it will not countenance the misuse of
the rules of procedures to frustrate or delay the delivery
of justice.27

Even if we ignored petitioners’ procedural lapse and

resolved their petition on the merits, we hold that
Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus
motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending
final judgment in Civil Case No. 7160. Section 6, Rule lll of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads:

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
 11. Bobis vs Bobis hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of
a crime have been adequately alleged in the
G.R. No. 138509 information, considering that the prosecution has not yet
presented a single evidence on the indictment or may
July 31, 2000
not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the
On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial
marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said question is in effect a question on the merits of the
marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, criminal charge through a non-criminal suit.
the same respondent contracted a second marriage
Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the
with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996
time of celebration of the second marriage, requires a
and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally
prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
Hernandez. Based on petitioners complaint-affidavit, an
before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this
information for bigamy was filed against respondent on
is that it is not for the parties, particularly the accused, to
February 25, 1998, which was docketed as Criminal Case
determine the validity or invalidity of the
No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226,
marriage.8 Whether or not the first marriage was void for
Quezon City. Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a
lack of a license is a matter of defense because there is
civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity
still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the
of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated
second marriage was contracted. It should be
without a marriage license. Respondent then filed a
remembered that bigamy can successfully be
motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case
prosecuted provided all its elements concur two of which
for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of
are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage
the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal
which would have been valid had it not been for the
case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the
existence at the material time of the first
criminal case in an Order dated December 29,
marriage.9cräläwvirtualibräry
1998.1 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but
the same was denied. In the case at bar, respondents clear intent is to obtain a
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner
thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent
argues that respondent should have first obtained a
his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before
eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has
entering into the second marriage, inasmuch as the
to do is to disregard Article 40 of the Family Code,
alleged prejudicial question justifying suspension of the
contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy
bigamy case is no longer a legal truism pursuant to Article
charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void
40 of the Family Code.2cräläwvirtualibräry
and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack
The issue to be resolved in this petition is whether the of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party
subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of
of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question a requisite - usually the marriage license - and thereafter
to a criminal case for bigamy. contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a
declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue nugatory the provisions on bigamy. As succinctly held
involved therein.3 It is a question based on a fact distinct in Landicho v. Relova:10cräläwvirtualibräry
and separate from the crime but so intimately connected
with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the (P)arties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge
accused.4 It must appear not only that the civil case for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having
involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the
but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party
action would necessarily be determinative of the criminal who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk
case.5 Consequently, the defense must involve an issue of being prosecuted for bigamy.
similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the
Respondent alleges that the first marriage in the case
criminal action and its resolution determinative of
before us was void for lack of a marriage license.
whether or not the latter action may proceed.6Its two
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that her marriage to
essential elements are:7cräläwvirtualibräry
respondent was exempt from the requirement of a
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately marriage license. More specifically, petitioner claims that
related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and prior to their marriage, they had already attained the
age of majority and had been living together as husband
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not and wife for at least five years.11 The issue in this case is
the criminal action may proceed. limited to the existence of a prejudicial question, and we
are not called upon to resolve the validity of the first
A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the marriage. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the Civil
guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the Code, under which the first marriage was celebrated,
sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to provides that "every intendment of law or fact leans
sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the
party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have marriage bonds."12 Hence, parties should not be
permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of their the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and
marriage, for the same must be submitted to the purposes regarded as a married man at the time he
determination of competent courts. Only when the nullity contracted his second marriage with petitioner.20 Against
of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for
so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered
that the marriage exists.13 No matter how obvious, into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first
manifest or patent the absence of an element is, the marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential
intervention of the courts must always be resorted to. That to the determination of the criminal charge. It is,
is why Article 40 of the Family Code requires a "final therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above,
judgment," which only the courts can render. Thus, as respondent cannot be permitted to use his own
ruled in Landicho v. Relova,14 he who contracts a second malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against
marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the him.21cräläwvirtualibräry
first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case may not be WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated
suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case December 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
for declaration of nullity. In a recent case for 226 of Quezon City is REVERSEDand SETASIDE and the trial
concubinage, we held that the pendency of a civil case court is ordered to IMMEDIATELYproceed with Criminal
for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial Case No. Q98-75611.
question.15 This ruling applies here by analogy since both
SO ORDERED.
crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage.

Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family

Code cannot even be successfully invoked as an
excuse.16 The contracting of a marriage knowing that the
requirements of the law have not been complied with or
that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is
an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.17 The
legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person
is presumed to know the law. As respondent did not
obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered
into the second marriage, why should he be allowed to
belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to
delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it
by his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise
the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a
matter of defense when he presents his evidence during
the trial proper in the criminal case.

The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first

marriage before the second marriage was contracted
rests upon the defense,18 but that is a matter that can be
raised in the trial of the bigamy case. In the meantime, it
should be stressed that not every defense raised in the
civil action may be used as a prejudicial question to
obtain the suspension of the criminal action. The lower
court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case for
bigamy. Moreover, when respondent was indicted for
bigamy, the fact that he entered into two marriage
ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he
was sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of
seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his first
marriage. The obvious intent, therefore, is that respondent
merely resorted to the civil action as a potential
prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or
delaying his criminal prosecution. As has been discussed
above, this cannot be done.

In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent,

without first having obtained the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly
entered into the second marriage. Per current
jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a
judicial declaration of such fact before any party can
marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be
void.19 The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of
its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In
 12. YAP vs. PARAS trying the criminal case but only upon petition of the
defendant in accordance with the Rules of Court. It is
GR. No. 101236 also stressed that a reversal of the order of dismissal
would not bar the prosecution of the accused under the
January 30, 1992
double jeopardy rule because he has not yet been
arraigned.

CRUZ, J.: The Court notes that the counsel for private respondent
Paras who filed the comment in his behalf is the son and
This is still another dispute between brother and sister over namesake of Judge Barcelona. Atty. Alfredo L.
a piece of property they inherited from their parents. The Barcelona, Jr. is employed in the Public Attorney's Office.
case is complicated by the circumstance that the private He has made it of record that he was not the counsel of
respondent's counsel in this petition is the son of the Paras at the time the questioned order of dismissal was
judge, the other respondent, whose action is being issued by his father. He thus impliedly rejects the charge
questioned. of bias against his father.

Petitioner Juliana P. Yap was the sister of private Perhaps out of filial loyalty, Atty. Barcelona suggests there
respondent Martin Paras.* may have been a basis for the order in view of the
alleged double sale of the property which was being
On October 31, 1971, according to Yap, Paras sold to her litigated in the regional trial court. He concedes,
his share in the intestate estate for P300.00. The sale was however, that the order may have been premature and
evidenced by a private document. Nineteen years later, that it could not have been issued motu proprio.
on May 2, 1990, Paras sold the same property to Santiago Agreeing that double jeopardy would not attach
Saya-ang for P5,000.00. This was evidenced by a because of the lack of arraignment, he asks that his
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. Comment be considered a motion for the suspension of
When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question.
complaint for estafa against Paras and Saya-ang with the The Court has deliberated on the issues and finds that the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of General Santos City. respondent judge did indeed commit grave abuse of
1 On the same date, she filed a complaint for the discretion in motu proprio issuing the order of dismissal.
nullification of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court
of General Santos City. 2 Section 6, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended by this Court on July 7, 1988,
After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a provides as follows:
criminal complaint for estafa against Paras with the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Glan-Malapatan, South Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A
Cotabato, presided by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action
On April 17, 1991, before arraignment of the accused, the may be filed in the office of the fiscal or the court
trial judge motu proprio issued an order dismissing the conducting the preliminary investigation. When the
criminal case on the ground that: criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
. . . after a careful scrutiny of the statements of to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at
complainant, Juliana P. Yap and of the respondent any time before the prosecution rests.
Martin Paras and his witnesses, the Court holds and Judge Barcelona's precipitate action is intriguing, to say
maintained (sic) that there is a prejudicial question to a the least, in light of the clear provision of the above-
civil action, which must be ventilated in the proper civil quoted rule. The rule is not even new, being only a
court. In the case of Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, the rewording of the original provision in the Rules of Court
Supreme Court had already made a pronouncement before they were amended. It plainly says that the
that "a criminal action for Estafa for alleged double sale suspension may be made only upon petition and not at
of property is a prejudicial question to a civil action for the instance of the judge alone, and it also says
nullity of the alleged Deed of Sale and defense of the suspension, and not dismissal. One also wonders if the
alleged vendors of forgeries of their signatures to the person who notarized the disputed second sale, Notary
Deed." 3 Public Alexander C. Barcelona, might be related to the
The Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was respondent judge.
denied on April 30, 1990. She then came to this Court for But more important than the preceding considerations is
relief in this special civil action for certiorari. the trial judge's misapprehension of the concept of a
The Court could have referred this petition to the Court of prejudicial question.
Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction under BP 129, Section 5, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
but decided to resolve the case directly in view of the Procedure as amended provides:
peculiar circumstances involved.
Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. — The two (2)
The petitioner's contention is that where there is a essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the
prejudicial question in a civil case, the criminal action civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
may not be dismissed but only suspended. Moreover, this the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the
suspension may not be done motu proprio by the judge
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the civil
criminal action may proceed. action that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a
forgery and spurious.
A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a
case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of xxx xxx xxx
the issue involved therein, and the congnizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must The petitioner Alejandro Ras claims in his answer to the
be determinative of the case before the court but the complaint in Civil Case No. 73 that he had never sold the
jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged property in litigation to the plaintiff (Luis Pichel) and that
in another court or tribunal. 4 It is a question based on a his signatures in the alleged deed of sale and that of his
fact distinct and separate from the crime but so wife were forged by the plaintiff. It is, therefore, necessary
intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or that the truth or falsity of such claim be first determined
innocence of the accused. 5 because if his claim is true, then he did not sell his
property twice and no estafa was committed. The
We have held that "for a civil case to be considered question of nullity of the sale is distinct and separate from
prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension the crime of estafa (alleged double sale) but so
of the criminal action pending the determination of the intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
civil action, it must appear not only that the civil case innocence of herein petitioner in the criminal action.
involves the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the In the Ras case, there was a motion to suspend the
issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily criminal action on the ground that the defense in the civil
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused". case — forgery of his signature in the first deed of sale —
6 had to be threshed out first. Resolution of that question
would necessarily resolve the guilt or innocence of the
It is the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial to the accused in the criminal case. By contrast, there was no
continuation of the criminal action, not the criminal motion for suspension in the case at bar; and no less
action that is prejudicial to the civil action. importantly, the respondent judge had not been
informed of the defense Paras was raising in the civil
The excerpt quoted by the respondent judge in his Order action. Judge Barcelona could not have ascertained
does not appear anywhere in the decision of Ras v. Rasul. then if the issue raised in the civil action would determine
7 Worse, he has not only misquoted the decision but also the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
wrongly applied it. The facts of that case are not case.
analogous to those in the case at bar.
It is worth remarking that not every defense raised in the
In that case, Ras allegedly sold to Pichel a parcel of land civil action will raise a prejudicial question to justify
which he later also sold to Martin. Pichel brought a civil suspension of the criminal action. The defense must
action for nullification of the second sale and asked that involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same
the sale made by Ras in his favor be declared valid. Ras's issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution should
defense was that he never sold the property to Pichel determine whether or not the latter action may proceed.
and his purported signatures appearing in the first deed
of sale were forgeries. Later, an information for estafa was The order dismissing the criminal action without a motion
filed against Ras based on the same double sale that was for suspension in accordance with Rule 111, Section 6, of
the subject of the civil action. Ras filed a "Motion for the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended, and
Suspension of Action" (that is, the criminal case), claiming even without the accused indicating his defense in the
that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would civil case for the annulment of the second sale, suggests
necessarily be determinative of his guilt or innocence. not only ignorance of the law but also bias on the part of
the respondent judge.
Through then Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee, this
Court ruled that a suspension of the criminal action was in Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. is sternly reminded that
order because: under the Code of Judicial Conduct, "a judge shall be
faithful to the law and maintain professional
On the basis of the issues raised in both the criminal and competence" and "should administer justice impartially."
civil cases against petitioner and in the light of the He is hereby reprimanded for his questionable conduct in
foregoing concepts of a prejudicial question, there the case at bar, with the warning that commission of
indeed appears to be a prejudicial question in the case similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
at bar, considering that petitioner Alejandro Ras' defense
(as defendant) in Civil Case No. 73 of the nullity and WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order issued by
forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Luis Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. dated April 17, 1991,
Pichel (plaintiff in the civil case and complaining dismissing Criminal Case No. 1902-G, and the Order
witnesses in the criminal case) is based on the very same dated April 30, 1991, denying the motion for
facts which would be necessarily determinative of reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal
petitioner Ras' guilt or innocence as accused in the Case No. 1902-G is ordered REINSTATED for further
criminal case. If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is proceedings, but to be assigned to a different judge.
void or fictitious, then there would be no double sale and
petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. A SO ORDERED.
conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to
proceed ahead) would be a gross injustice and would