Crim Pro Digest: Casupanan v. Laroya (GR No. 145391)

Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 111:  Prosecution of Civil Actions, When Civil Action May Proceed Independently

G. R. No. 145391                August 26, 2002

Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo, petitioners,

v.

Mario Llavore Laroya, respondent.

Carpio, J.:


FACTS:

Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Capitulo and driven by petitioner Casupanan, figured in an accident. This prompted the filing of two cases before the MCTC of Capas Tarlac: 1st – a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property filed by respondent against Casapunan; 2nd – a civil case arising from a quasi-delict filed by the petitioners against the respondent. The civil case was filed pending preliminary investigation on the criminal case. Respondent as defendant in the civil case filed a motion to dismiss on ground of forum shopping due pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion for dismissal on basis of forum shopping. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that a separate civil action may be instituted separately and independently from the criminal case. MCTC denied the motion. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition for Certiorari before Capas RTC to assail MCTC’s Order, however the RTC dismissed the same for lack of merit. Hence, a petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can legitimately initiate a distinct civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case, whether simultaneously or independently, is a matter to be addressed. - YES.


HELD:

The right of the accused to initiate a distinct civil action for quasi-delict mirrors the right of the aggrieved party to pursue an independent civil action, as stipulated in Section 1 of Rule 111. As per the aforementioned rule, the independent civil actions outlined in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code are not deemed initiated alongside the criminal action. Instead, the offended party can independently file these actions without the need for prior reservation. It is important to note that the initiation of the criminal action does not impede the pursuit of independent civil actions governed by these Civil Code provisions. Section 2 of Rule 111 exclusively pertains to the civil action arising from the crime, only if such civil action is reserved or filed prior to the commencement of the criminal action. Thus, the aggrieved party can institute two separate legal actions for the same act or omission: first, a criminal case in which the civil action for civil liability ex-delicto is considered initiated; and second, a civil case for quasi-delict, all without infringing upon the prohibition against forum shopping. These two cases can progress concurrently and autonomously. However, it's vital to emphasize that the aggrieved party cannot claim damages twice for the identical act or omission committed by the defendant.

Likewise, the accused is granted the prerogative to file a civil action for quasi-delict arising from the same act or omission for which they face criminal charges. This provision is explicitly sanctioned in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the current Rule 111, which delineates that the counterclaim of the accused can be litigated through a separate civil action. This approach is equitable for two key reasons. Firstly, the accused is precluded from asserting any counterclaim within the civil aspect concurrently instituted in the criminal case, mandating that they pursue their counterclaim against the aggrieved party separately. Failure to initiate a distinct civil action for quasi-delict could result in the lapse of the prescriptive period, as this period continues to elapse until the filing of the civil action for quasi-delict. Secondly, since the accused is presumed innocent, they possess the right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code. This right aligns with the remedies available to the offended party, who can independently seek redress through the same provision, irrespective of the ongoing criminal action. Denying the accused the opportunity to initiate a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize their counterclaim in the criminal case, would constitute a violation of their due process rights, access to the courts, and equal protection under the law.


CONCLUSION:

Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by petitioners is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC on the grounds of forum shopping is erroneoneous.

Wherefore, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.


SOURCE:

G. R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002  Avelino Casupanan an Roberto Capitulo, petitiones,  v.  Mario Llavore Laroya, respondent. (n.d.). The LawPhil Project. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_145391_2002.html


Digested by: Lyra Gerona | MSU LAW | 1-Arellano                           

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CRIM PRO Digest: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 213847)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 114:  Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception G. R. No. 213847                 July 12, 2016 JUAN PONCE ENRILE , Petitioner, vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondents. BERSAMIN, J. : DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail  – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to  ensure that the accused appears at trial . Bail is a right and a matter of discretion  – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of ...
Read more

How to Digest a Case: FORMAT

  FORMAT OF A CASE DIGEST TITLE: Include the petitioner and respondents of the case and the reference. Sometimes, students only include the Volume Number of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)/Philippine Reports (Phil) and the first page where the case appeared or written. Others only include the Gazette Record Number together with the Date of the case. Still, others include both. Others even add the ponente or the justice that penned the case. FACTS: There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to the subject. The contents of the facts must be brief and concise. It must be limited to the main facts of the case which of course should focus on the particular subject assigned. ISSUES: Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void? “Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whe...
Read more

CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer G. R. Nos. 153524-25                 January 31, 2005 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA , Petitioners, vs.  HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,  Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, J. : DOCTRINE: Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial autho...
Read more