Está en la página 1de 5

Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure RULE 111 - SECTION 1

Implied institution of of the civil action with the criminal action:

(Cruz vs. Mina) Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular representation The basic rule applies in the instant case, such that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (JAVIER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT) As the civil action was not reserved by the petitioners, it was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The applicable provision is Rule 111, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, reading in full as follows: Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.- When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action.. Reaseon on the prohibition in filing of a separate civil action in another court: (JAVIER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT) The private respondent is now seeking to make amends by filing a separate civil action based on the same matter in the Regional Trial Court of Northern Samar. That is bad enough. But what could be worse is that he may have filed the civil complaint in the second court for the more censurable purpose of deliberately delaying the trial of the criminal case, which has been deferred long enough as it is. That should not be permitted. If such logic were accepted, every accused could file his own civil complaint against the offended party based on the same transaction involved in the prosecution, but in another court. The effect would not only be multiplicity of suits but delay and frustration of the criminal case.

Non application of implied institution of the civil action: (Salazar Vs. The People of the Philippines) When 1) the offended party waives the civil action or 2)reserves the right to institute it separately or 3) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there are two actions involved in a criminal case. (CASUPANAN vs. LAROYA) Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is "deemed instituted" with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or exdelicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer "deemed instituted Reservation of the civil action:

(CASUPANAN vs. LAROYA) Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with the criminal action. Non-Reservation of the civil action in B.P. 22 cases (LO BUN TIONG vs.BALBOA quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp) Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) x x x (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. x x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure ] was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases.

Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case.

Purposes of the criminal and civil actions:

(Salazar vs. People) The criminal action has a dual purpose, namely, the punishment of the offender and indemnity to the offended party. The dominant and primordial objective of the criminal action is the punishment of the offender. The civil action is merely incidental to and consequent to the conviction of the accused. The reason for this is that criminal actions are primarily intended to vindicate an outrage against the sovereignty of the state and to impose the appropriate penalty for the vindication of the disturbance to the social order caused by the offender. On the other hand, the action between the private complainant and the accused is intended solely to indemnify the former. Parties in interest:

(Salazar vs. People) ..two actions involved in a criminal case. The first is the criminal action for the punishment of the offender. The parties are the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff and the accused. In a criminal action, the private complainant is merely a witness for the State on the criminal aspect of the action. The second is the civil action arising from the delict. The private complainant is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant. There is a merger of the trial of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits. If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal as it would place the accused in double jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or the accused or both may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of the case within the period therefor. Judgment of conviction includes a judgement on the civil liability

(Salazar vs. People) The prosecution presents its evidence not only to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but also to prove the civil liability of the accusedto the offended party. After the prosecution has rested its case, the accused shall adduce its evidence not only on the criminal but also on the civil aspect of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the court should render judgment not only on the criminal aspect of the case but also on the civil aspect thereof: Rule 120, Section 2: 4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

Counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim in a criminal action:

(CASUPANAN vs. LAROYA) Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was incorporated in the 2000 RulesUnder this provision, the accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint in the criminal case. However, the same provision states that "any cause of action which could have been the subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint) may be litigated in a separate civil action." The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall proceed independently of the criminal action, even as the civil action of the offended party is litigated in the criminal action. Rules on Filing fees: (GENERAL vs CLARAVALL) the rule is as follows: 1) when "the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information" filed in court, then "the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial;" 2) in any other case, howeveri.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply "constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages. Manchester laid down the doctrine the specific amounts of claims of damages must be alleged both in the body and the prayer of the complaint, and the filing fees corresponding thereto paid at the time of the filing of the complaint; that if these

requisites were not fulfilled, jurisdiction could not be acquired by the trial court; and that amendment of the complaint could not "thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court." Sun Insurance and Tacay affirmed the validity of the basic principle but reduced its stringency somewhat by providing that only those claims as to which the amounts were not specified would be refused acceptance or expunged and that, in any case, the defect was not necessarily fatal of irremediable as the plaintiff could on motion be granted a reasonable time within which to amend his complaint and pay the requisite filing fees, unless in the meantime the period of limitation of the right of action was completed.

También podría gustarte