Criminal Procedures

MARY GRACE L. RENON Criminal Procedures

BL 3

YAKULT PHILIPPINES VS CA 190 SCRA 357 FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. Later, a complaint for damages was filed by respondent represented by his father, against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court. Trial court rendered decision awarding damages to respondents. Petitioners appealed on the thesis that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence of Salvado, being without malice, cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Further, it is contended that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. The appeal was dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed, before presentation of evidence by the prosecution, would prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action. HELD: Yes. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence.

MARY GRACE L. RENON Criminal Procedures

BL 3

PEOPLE VS ARAGON 94 PHIL 357 Facts: Defendant is charged in the CFI of Cebu with the crime of bigamy, for having contracted a second marriage with one Efigenia C. Palomer while his previous valid marriage with Martina Godinez was still subsisting and had not been dissolved. While the case was pending trial, Efigenia C. Palomer filed a civil action in the same Court of First Instance of Cebu against the defendant appellant, alleging that the latter "by means of force, threats and intimidation of bodily harm, forced plaintiff to marry him", and praying that their marriage be annulled . Thereupon, defendant-appellant filed a motion in the criminal case for bigamy, praying that the criminal charge be provisionally dismissed, on the ground that the civil action for annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial question. The court denied this motion on the ground that the validity of the second marriage may be determined in the very criminal action for bigamy. Against this order this appeal has been presented to this court. Issue: May the defendant use the supposed use of force and intimidation in contracting the second marriage to dismiss the case of bigamy against him? Held: There is no question that if the allegations of the complaint on time the marriage contracted by defendant-appellant with Efigenia C. Palomer is illegal and void (Sec. 29,Act 3613 otherwise known as the Marriage Law). Its nullity, however, is no defense to the criminal action for bigamy filed against him. The supposed use of force and intimidation against the woman, Palomer, even if it were true, is not a bar or defense to said action. Palomer, were she the one charged with bigamy, could perhaps raise said force or intimidation as a defense, because she may not be considered as having freely and voluntarily committed the act if she was forced to the marriage by intimidation. But not the other party, who used the force or intimidation. The latter may not use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his criminal act.

MARY GRACE L. RENON Criminal Procedures

BL 3

CONJUANGCO, JR. VS CA 203 SCRA 629 Facts: Claiming that the publication alludes to petitioners-spouses and that it is false, malicious and constitutes a vicious attack on petitioner-wife's virtue, honor and character as it imputes her not only the corrupt and immoral act of "following up" an alleged loan, but also the commission of corrupt and immoral acts of adultery and/or prostitution, petitioners filed the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Quezon City a criminal case for libel and civil action for Damages based on Libel against the Graphic Publishing Co., Inc. Petitioners filed therein separate motions to consolidate the criminal case with the civil case alleging that the evidence to be presented in both would be the same much valuable time and effort of the court as well as that of the parties would be saved by such consolidation; and, moreover Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides, inter alia, that in libel the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice-versa, provided, however, that the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts, which was granted by the court. Hence, this instant petition. Issue: Whether or not the criminal case and the separate and independent civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the former, filed pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, may be consolidated for joint trial. Held: Yes. Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court authorizes consolidation of actions involving common questions of law or fact pending before the court. The purpose or object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, and save unnecessary costs or expense; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants. This provision applies to both civil and criminal actions. Caños and Naguiat had removed any doubt on this point. It is self-evident that the civil case and criminal case involve common or identical questions of fact and law, and that they would even have the same witnesses. These considerations alone justify the exercise by the court of its discretion to consolidate the cases for joint hearing to attain the salutary purpose of consolidation. There is further consideration why in the instant case consolidation should be allowed. What is involved is the crime of libel. As correctly stated by petitioners, per the third paragraph of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the criminal case for libel and the civil action for damages arising therefrom must be filed in the same court.