Obligation to satisfy civil liability
On Criminal Law
Obligation to satisfy civil liability
Art.113
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
NOTES:
Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists even if the offender has served sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights or has not served the same, due to amnesty, pardon, commutation of the sentence, or any other reason.
Under the law as amended, even if the subsidiary imprisonment is served for non- payment of fines, this pecuniary liability of the defendant is not extinguished.
While amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, it does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the crime.
Bar Exam Question (2000)
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
Suggested Answer:
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony;
2) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4) Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New Civil Code;
7) When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
8) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
Bar Exam Question (2000)
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence {Art. 29, CC). If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}.
Art.113
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
NOTES:
Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists even if the offender has served sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights or has not served the same, due to amnesty, pardon, commutation of the sentence, or any other reason.
Under the law as amended, even if the subsidiary imprisonment is served for non- payment of fines, this pecuniary liability of the defendant is not extinguished.
While amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, it does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the crime.
Bar Exam Question (2000)
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
Suggested Answer:
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony;
2) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4) Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New Civil Code;
7) When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
8) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
Bar Exam Question (2000)
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence {Art. 29, CC). If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.