1) May a person be held civilly liable despite his acquittal in
the criminal case?DALURAYA vs. OLIVAG.R. No. 210148, December 08,
2014PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:A: Yes. The acquittal of the accused does
not automatically preclude a judgment against him on the civil
aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of
the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which
the accused is acquitted. However, the civil action based on delict
may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused
did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.2) What is the
effect of a dismissal for denial of respondents' right to speedy
trial as to the criminal aspect of the case?Bonsubre, Jr. vs.
YerroG.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015Perlas-Bernabe, Jr.A: No. A
dismissal on the ground of the denial of the accuseds right to a
speedy trial will have the effect of acquittal that would bar
further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. Where
after such dismissal the prosecution moved for the reconsideration
of the order of dismissal and the court re-set the case for trial,
the accused can successfully claim double jeopardy as the said
order was actually an acquittal, was final and cannot be
reconsidered. While the remedy of certiorari may be availed of in
order to challenge the judgment or order of acquittal, petitioner
must prove that the trial court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely errors of judgment, but grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.3) A and B
entered into a construction agreement, where B issued checks that
were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. A filed an
information against B for violation of BP 22. A year later, B filed
a complaint against A for for the rescission of the construction
agreement. B also filed a Motion to Suspend the proceedings on the
ground of prejudicial question. Decide. DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION,
INC.,vs.VELASCO JR.,G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009A: Motion to
suspend proceedings denied. In order for a civil case to create a
prejudicial question and, thus, suspend a criminal case, it must be
filed previous to the filing of the criminal case. Here the civil
action was filed after the criminal action, hence no prejudicial
question will arise.Moreover, even if the construction agreement is
rendered void for lack of consideration, this would not affect the
prosecution of B in the criminal case as B indeed issued checks
which were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds which is
the subject of prosecution under BP 22. 4) A police was driving his
motorcycle when he saw A from a distance of about 8-10 meters
holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. The
police recognized A as someone he had previously arrested for
illegal drug possession. He then arrested A and confiscated from
him a plastic sachet which was later discovered to be meth. A was
convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Was there a
valid warrantless arrest? G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINESvs.NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LUALHATIPERLAS-BERNABE,
J.:A: No. In order to effect a valid warrantless arrest under par
(a) of Sec. 5 of Rule 113, 1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officerHere, the act per se of examining something in
ones hands cannot be considered as an overt act sufficient to
incite suspicion of criminal activity. Moreover, there was no
showing that the police had personal knowledge that a crime had
been committed by A. 5) Will an application for bail pending appeal
by an appellant sentenced to imprisonment for more than six years,
be automatically granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned
in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court?A: No. Bail pending appeal is a matter of sound judicial
discretion. This means that, if none of the circumstances mentioned
is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny
bail. A finding that none of the said circumstances is present will
not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will
simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound
discretion approach.G.R. No. 189122 March 17, 2010JOSE ANTONIO
LEVISTE, Petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.D E C I S I O NCORONA, J.:
