RULE 111 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

General Rule: Civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. Reason: Art. 100, RPC - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable To avoid multiplicity of suits Exceptions: 1. Waives the civil action2. Reserves the right to institute it separately3. Prior institution of civil actionGeneral Rule: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.Exception: When no actual damage results from an offense (ex. espionage, flight to enemy country)Purpose of criminal action: to punish the offender in order to deter him & others from committing the offense, to isolate him from society, reform & rehabilitate him, to maintain social orderPurpose of civil action: for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage/ injury he sustained Either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment (despite acquittal).Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed included in a criminal action.Civil actions in Articles 32, 33, 34 (sources of obligations arising from direct provisions of law) and 2176 (arises from a source of obligation distinct from a crime) of the Civil Code shall remain separate, distinct and independent of any criminal prosecution. Reservation of the civil action must be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence No reservation of civil action in BP 22 (but waiver or institution of civil action prior to criminal action is allowed)After criminal action is commenced, separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment in the criminal action.If right to institute civil action separately has been reserved, it cannot be instituted until final judgment in the criminal action. This rule does not apply to independent civil actions Offended party may move for the consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action- must be filed before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action. Prescriptive period of the civil action shall be tolled during the pendency of the criminal action.When no reservation is required/ when civil action is not suspended: Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS Shall proceed independently of the criminal action In no case however my the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal actionNo counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case (may be litigated in a separate civil action)No filing fees required for actual damages claimed (unless required by the Rules, ex. BP 22 requires filing fees to be paid based on amount of check and shall be paid in full)Filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing of the criminal action where he seeks for enforcement of the civil liability of the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages.Effect of death of accused on the civil actionIf accused dies after arraignment: Civil liability arising from the crime is extinguished Independent civil actions and civil liabilities arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative If accused dies before arraignment: Case shall be dismissed Offended party may file proper civil action against the estate of the deceased Novation does not extinguish criminal liability.General Rule: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. Exception: if there is finding in a final judgment that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist

When extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action: Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases) Court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil Civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which he was acquitted Payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability.Final judgment in a civil action absolving a defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission. Subsidiary liability of employer must prove that: They are indeed the employers of the convicted employees They are engaged in some kind of industry Crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties Execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency

PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONPrejudicial Question an issue involved in a civil case which is similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, the resolution of which determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed must be instituted previously or ahead of the criminal action jurisdiction to try and resolve the prejudicial question is lodged in another tribunal proceedings in the second case suspended to await resolution of the prejudicial questionReason: to avoid two conflicting decisionsElements of a prejudicial question: The civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based In the resolution of the issue/s raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal The principle of prejudicial question will not arise if the criminal case was instituted prior to the civil case.A prejudicial question accords a civil case a preferential treatment and constitutes an exception to the general rule that the civil action shall be suspended when the criminal action is instituted. Where to file petition for suspension: In the criminal case In the office of the prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation

CASESPimentel v. PimentelFacts: Private respondent filed action for frustrated parricide Several months later, private respondent filed for declaration of nullity of marriage Petitioner filed motion to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question Ruling: No prejudicial question Even if the marriage would be declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been committed (all that is required is that at the time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting) Also, the criminal case was filed ahead of the case for declaration of nullity Issue in the annulment of marriage (psychological incapacity) is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide Magestrado v. PeopleFacts: Private respondent filed criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner for executing an affidavit of loss of a certificate of title of land despite allegedly knowing that no loss occurred because he actually delivered the same to private respondent as security for a loan Petitioner filed motion for suspension based on a prejudicial question Petitioner alleged that another civil case is also pending when he filed against private respondent a complaint for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title and damages Ruling: No prejudicial question The pending civil cases are principally for the determination of whether a loan was obtained by the petitioner from the private respondent and whether petitioner executed a real estate mortgage in favor of private respondent The criminal case involved the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently of each other The outcome of the civil cases will not establish the innocence or guilty of the petitioner in perjury Omictin v. Court of AppealsFacts: Petitioner, operations manager of a corporation, filed a complaint for two counts of estafa against the private respondent, alleging that private respondent, despite repeated demands, refused to return the two company vehicles entrusted to him when he was still president of the corporation Private respondent avers that they were not valid demands since the petitioner did not have the authority to act for the corporation in view of the invalidity of his appointment Private respondent filed motion to suspend proceedings on basis of a prejudicial question because of the then pending case with the SEC involving the same parties private respondent filed a case for the declaration of nullity of the appointment of the petitioner as corporate officers (alleging that they were invalid because it was in derogation of the corporate by-laws) The case also involved the recovery of share in the profits, involuntary dissolution and appointment of a receiver, recovery of damages and an application for a TRO and injunction against the corporation and some of its officials Thus, private respondent claims the petitioner has no power nor authority to represent or act for the corporation in any transaction or action before any court of justice Private respondent allegedly retained possession of the office equipment of the company in a fiduciary capacity as director of the corporation pending its dissolution/ resolution of the intra-corporate dispute Ruling: Yes, there is a prejudicial question The resolution of the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute will determine the guilt or innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa One of the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence is demand made by the offended party to the offender Since the alleged offended party is the corporation, validity of the demand rests upon the authority of the person making such a demand on the companys behalf In the civil cases, the private respondent was challenging the petitioners authority to act for the corporation If the supposed authority of petitioner is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence prosecution for estafa cannot prosper

Yap v. CabalesFacts: Petitioner issued bouncing checks Private respondents filed civil actions to collect sums of money with damages Subsequently, informations were also filed against petitioner for violation of BP 22 Petitioner filed motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal cases on account of the existence of a prejudicial question Petitioner contends that if the court rules that there is no valid consideration for the checks issuance, then it necessarily follows that he could not be held liable for violation of BP 22Ruling: No prejudicial question Issue in criminal cases was whether the petitioner is guilty of violating BP 22 Issue in civil case was whether private respondents are entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or value of the checks The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case In a criminal action for violation of BP 22, it is the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks which constitutes the offense Sps. Jose v. Sps. SuarezFacts: Respondents are debtors of the petitioners under an agreement which required respondents to pay a daily interest on their debts but which interest was later on increased Respondents filed complaint against petitioners seeking declaration of nullity of interest alleging that it was iniquitous, contrary to morals, etc. After, several cases for violation of BP 22 was filed against one of the respondents Respondents filed motions to suspend criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, on the theory that the checks subject of the BP 22 cases are void for being contra bonos mores or for having been issued in payment of the iniquitous and unconscionable interest imposed by petitionersRuling: No prejudicial question Validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the guilt of respondents Reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under BP 22 (mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum)

Land Bank of the Phiippines v. Ramon JacintoFacts: Respondent contented that the novation of the credit line agreement was a prejudicial question in the prosecution for violation of BP 22Ruling: No prejudicial question The agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonoured checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22Sabandal v. TongcoFacts: Petitioner was charged with 11 counts of violations of BP 22 3 years after the institution of the criminal actions, petitioner filed with the RTC a complaint against private respondent a case for specific performance, recovery of overpayment and damages Issue was whether a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of the trial of the criminal casesRuling: No prejudicial question Issue in criminal case was whether the accused knowingly issued worthless checks Issue in the civil action was whether the petitioner overpaid his obligations to the private respondent If after trial in the civil case the petitioner is shown to have overpaid respondent, it does not follow that he cannot be held liable for the bouncing checks (mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of insufficiency of funds is itself an offense)Marbella-Bobis v. BobisFacts: Respondent contracted second marriage with petitioner without having first marriage annulled Petitioner filed case for bigamy After, respondent initiated civil action for judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage Respondent then filed motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case Ruling: No prejudicial question Declaration of nullity of the marriage was not determinative of the issue in the bigamy case (without judicial declaration of nullity, first marriage is presumed to be subsisting) Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first

Beltran v. PeopleFacts: Petitioner filed petition for nullity of marriage Wife of petitioner subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage Petitioner filed motion to defer proceedings in the criminal case on the ground that petition for nullity was a prejudicial question Ruling: No prejudicial question Even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is void is not a defense in concubinage Te v. CAFacts: Petitioner contracted second marriage with another woman while first marriage still subsists Private respondent filed complaint for bigamy Month before filing the complaint, petitioner had already filed an action for annulment of previous marriage Private respondent then filed with the PRC for the revocation of the licenses of the petitioner and the second woman Petitioner then filed with the PRC motion to suspend the action in view of the pendency of the civil action for annulment Ruling: No prejudicial question Outcome of the annulment case had no bearing upon the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for bigamy (all that is required here is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time of second marriage) No prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other civil