RULE 111 INSTITUTION OF CIVIL SUIT

Section 1 Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions

CASE FACTS RULING DOCTRINE
YES It has been ruled in several cases that acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not
automatically exempt the accused from civil liability which is based on preponderance of
The Rules of Court expressly
evidence. While the CA acquitted him for failure to prove sufficiently the appropriation of
Chiok was charged with estafa for allegedly enticing private respondent Chua allow the institution of a civil
Chiok v. People Chuas money, there still was a monetary transaction between the two based on the
into purchasing shares of stock amounting to 9.5 million. Chiok contends that action in the crimes of both estafa
preponderance of evidence Chiok openly admitted to receiving 7.9 M and 1.6 M on
G.R. Nos. 179814 & 180021, the relationship that transpired between them was an unregistered partnership and BP 22 without need of
separate occasions.
December 7, 2015 wherein they both ventured to purchase the stocks. Further, he alleges that his election by the offended party
Further, it has already been ruled that a civil action in a BP 22 case is not a bar to a civil
acquittal in the BP 22 case makes him not civilly liable to Chua in the present except that theyre prohibited
action in estafa. The Rules of Court expressly allow the institution of a civil action in the
(estafa for stock case.
crimes of both estafa and BP 22 without need of election by the offended party except that
from double recovery. While only
shares) one civil liability arises from BP
theyre prohibited from double recovery. While only one civil liability arises from BP 22, this
W/N Chiok is civilly liable 22, this can be subject of both the
can be subject of both the civil actions in estafa and BP 22. The basis for the acquittal was the
civil actions in estafa and BP22.
failure of the prosecution to show that a notice of dishonor was presented to Chiok.
However, there was still a valid debt.
Bernardo obtained a loan from private complainant Carmencita amounting to YES While generally death extinguished both criminal and civil liability ex-delicto, the
460k. Bernardo gave as security a duplicate copy of a Torrens title. He then independent civil liabilities, however, survive death and an action for recovery may be
issued (5) FEBTC checks to cover the loan. All checks were dishonored because generally pursued by filing a separate civil action. In BP 22 cases, the criminal case is Civil liabilities independent
Bernardo v. People the account was closed. Subsequent demands were unheeded and thus a case of deemed to include the corresponding civil actions and only one single suit is filed and tried. from the delict rising from BP 22
G.R. No. 182210, BP 22 was filed. He alleges that he cannot be liable because the checks were used The independent civil liabilities arising from the act are NOT extinguished and may still be may still be filed after even when
October 5, 2015 beyond the 90-day period, as well as the absence of proof her knowledge of the enforced against her estate in the present case. the civil action delict is filed with
insufficiency. She was convicted in both the RTC and CA but pending appeal, YES Bernardo failed to adduce evidence that she had already paid the debt she owed to BP 22. This may be done through
(5 FEBTC Checks) Bernardo died. respondent. Such civil liability arising from contract is separate from the BP 22 delict. The appeal by the private
defense of dishonor are no longer availing as they refer to the criminal action but not to the respondent.
W/N she is still civilly liable despite her death civil action arising from contract. This was sufficiently established by the promissory note
W/N there is actual civil liabilities evidencing the indebtedness.
Jefferson Cham (insured by Standard Insurance) and Arnold Cuaresma (car
owned by Jerry Cuaresma) were involved in an accident in North Avenue,
Quezon City. Cham subrogated Standard Insurance to recover all claims against
anybody liable thereto. Petitioner extra-judicially demanded Cuaresma for the YES Contrary to respondents allegations, there is NO forum shopping. The RTC has
Standard Insurance damages in repairing the vehicle. already ruled that the civil suit filed by petitioner may run independently of the criminal
Meanwhile, Cuaresma filed criminal charges for Reckless Imprudence action filed by Cuaresmas. This is allowed by the following provisions as per ruling of Forum Shopping Filing of
Company v. resulting in property damage against Cham. Standard Insurance filed a counter Casupanan v. Laroya: multiple suits involving same
Cuaresma suit for damages against respondents for their damage to Chams car. Article 2176 act or omission causing damage (quasi-delict) parties for same cause to obtain
G.R. No. 200055, Respondents were declared in default for their failure to respond in the civil suit Art 2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct favorable ruling.
September 10, 2014 against them. from civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC.
The RTC ruled against petitioner for inconsistencies with the evidence, but ruled Section 1, Rule 111 counter-claim of accused should be in a separate civil action.
that contrary to respondents contention, the civil suit and the criminal suit for
reckless imprudence may proceed independently.
W/N the cases can proceed independently
GRANTED There is NO civil liability case. The New Rules of Court promulgated on
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed a case of BP 22 against Eduardo
Heirs of Simon December 1, 2000 are retroactive in effect even if they are procedural since no substantive
Simon. More than 3 years later, respondent Elvin Chan filed a civil action for the There cannot be separate civil
v. Chan rights are really affected. They may be applied to cases pending before promulgation of the
collection of the 336k Simon owed to him. Chan contends that the action is action arising from the issuance
G.R. No. 157547, rule. It expressly provided that no separate civil action may be filed under BP 22 and that
proper since Rule 111 allows the reservation of the right to file the case of a bad check under BP22.
February 23, 2011 both civil and criminal actions are impliedly instituted together without any right of
separately.
reservation. This was enacted to help declog the dockets of multitude of BP 22 cases due to
CriimPro

Section 2 Separate Civil Action is Suspended
Respondent Munoz made statements about Elizalde Co in several radio interviews
in Legaspi City. Munoz was charged for perjury. Munoz claimed that (a) CO
influenced the Prosecutor of Legaspi to expedite arrests against him, (b)
manipulated results in govt bidding in Masarawag-San Francisco dredging, (c)
received 2M from Munoz on condition that Co will subcontract the project to
Munoz which Co did not comply with.
Co v. Munoz Co filed his complaint which led to filing of 3 criminal informations for libel.
G.R. No. 181986, Notably, he did NOT waive, institute, or reserve his right to file a separate civil
December 4, 2013
action. Munoz counters that considering Co is a public figure due to his
participation in government projects, his imputations are privileged
(Libel case against communication.
The CA reversed the RTC decision and acquitted Munoz for absolute failure to
businessman)
prove existence of actual malice. Co acknowledges that he may no longer appeal
the criminal aspect, but now files claims for damages arguing that the extinction of
penal action does not extinguish that of the civil action. Munoz counters that when
there was no reservation of the right to separately institute a civil action, the
extinction of the criminal action extinguishes the civil action as well,
W/N a private party may appeal judgment of acquittal for civil liability
An information for violation of BP 22 was filed against petitioner Domingo before
the MTCC of Davao. The MTCC granted the demurrer of evidence filed by
Domingo v. Colina
petitioner stating that respondent had failed to prove elements 2 and 3 of BP 22.
G.R. No. 173330,
Contending that (1) even If she didnt receive valuable consideration (2) knowledge
June 17, 2013
of insufficiency is presumed from the dishonor, she is still liable for the check. The
RTC reversed and the CA affirmed the liability of petitioner to 175,000 plus 12%
(incomplete BP 22 interest. Petitioner contends that the CA abused its discretion in upholding the RTC
ruling considering that it does not have jurisdiction because MTCC already ruled
elements)
that the act from which civil liability may arise did NOT exist.
W/N the CA ruling is wrong
the absence of filing fees for civil actions. The only instance when separate proceedings are
allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the rules
encourage a consolidation of the civil and criminal cases.
YES. BUT IN THIS CASE HE MAY NOT Extinction of the criminal action DOES NOT
carry with it extinction of the civil action, whether or not separated from the criminal action.
He may still claim ex delicto damages if there is a finding that civil liability may arise from the
act or omission:
(a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required
Where the crime does not exist,
(b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil and
the civil liability arising from it
(c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime
does not also.
of which the accused is acquitted.
RESPONDENT NOT CIVILLY LIABLE The CA acquitted Munoz because the statement
was privileged communication. In libel, existence of malice is an essential element. Malice is
generally presumed in all libelous statements, but such is destroyed when it is proven that it
is privileged communication. The burden shifts to offended to prove malice in fact. Without
such crime, no civil liability may exist.
NO. Petitioner IS LIABLE.
Civil liability will BE
The orders of the MTCC DID NOT contain any determination as to the civil liability of
extinguished if the final
accused. The acquittal of accused for the criminal charges did NOT include the acquittal in
judgment rules that the
the civil case. While it held in its order that the act from which civil liability may arise did not
act/omission from which civil
exist, it failed to cite evidence or any discussion warranting such ruling, simply concluding
liability may arise did NOT
that not all the elements were present.
exist. The judgment shall state
The tenor of the MTCC ruling is that dismissal was due to failure to prove BRD. This lack of
w/n it absolutely failed to prove
elements does NOT mean no civil liability exists, because civil liability merely needs
guilt OR failed to prove it BRD
preponderance of evidence. The prosecution was able to prove the (1) and (4) elements
+ determine if civil liability did
(drawing check and dishonor). Hence, the fact that petitioner was proven to have drawn an
not exist at all.
insufficient check and issued such, some civil liability may exist.
CriimPro
 (1) Ching is correct and entitled to appeal the civil aspect
It is true that the civil aspect was impliedly instituted with the criminal suit. The court does
HOWEVER, it must establish:
have jurisdiction with the timely appeal for review of the CAs civil aspect ruling. (doctrine)
Petitioner Ching filed criminal complaints for 11 counts of BP 22 violations against (a) Acquittal is based on BRD
(2) Nicados civil liability was COMPLETELY extinguished
respondent Nicdao. 14 other complaints against Nicdao by Chings common law (civil only needs POE)
A review of the facts states that the civil liability was completely extinguished.
spouse Emma Nuguid. The checks were issued to Ching (HSLB Checks) as security (b) Court declared that liability
Ching v. Nicdao First the acquittal was not merely for failure to prove BRD, but she absolutely did NOT
for loans that she obtained from him to settle financial obligations. After being is only civil, and
G.R. No. 141181, commit the crime of BP 22. The P20M was a stolen check which was never issued nor
ruled against by the RTC and CA, petitioner argues that while he has forgone the (c) Civil liability does not arise
April 27, 2007 delivered by Nicdao to petitioner Ching. Ching did NOT acquire any right or interest over
criminal liability of Nicdao, he avers that civil liability may still exist considering from the crime but from
the check.
that the civil suit is filed with the criminal suit in BP 22 cases and that his acquittal other obligations
Second the CA ruled that she was not civilly liable because she had already paid the
(stolen bank check for the criminal charges does not extinguish the civil liability. Ching alleges that
obligation in full. After computation, she was only liable for 2,100,000 and 1,150,000 but she
Nicdao issued to him a check for P20 M which bounced. Nicdao alleges that she Also, civil liability is
worth 2 Mil) paid already in the amount of 6.98 M.
never issued a check and that the checkbook was stolen from her. extinguished if it was ruled that
Third Petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the existence of the unpaid
civil liability may not arise or did
loan obligations. It was discovered that Niquid has access to the store of Nicdao since she was
W/N Nicdao is liable. (NO) not exist from the act or omission
the one who delivered the tobacco. Established by circumstnial evidence, she acquired
done.
possession of the check and filled up the issuance of P 20M. being undelivered, Ching never
acquired any rights over it.

Section 3 When Civil Action May Proceed Independently

Lily Lim filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the CA assailing that the CA
erroneously ruled that Lily Lims petition for appeal in a criminal case for estafa is
dismissed for filing a separate civil complaint against Charlie Co in violation of the
rule on forum shopping and litis pendentia. This case stems from withdrawals of A single act or omission that
Lim v. Kou Co cement from FR Cement Corporation. FRCC sold these withdrawal authorities to NO THE PETITION IS VALID AND GRANTED causes damage may give rise to
Ping respondent Co for P63 per bag. Co sold these to Lim for P64 per bag (50k bags). The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, having been instituted with the criminal two separate civil liabilities:
G.R. Nos. 175256 & After withdrawing 2,800 bags and selling 10,000 to Co, Lim was not allowed to complaint. On the other hand, the section action judging by the allegations is a civil action (1) Ex delicto arising from
179160, August 23, 2012 withdraw the remaining 37,200 due to a price increase and would only release once arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of rights). The second crime
Lim pays for the difference OR agrees to receive lesser quantity. After demands at action was based on FRCCs failure to honor the terms of the withdrawal authorities issued (2) Independent Civil Liability
Co to fix the problem, she filed for suit of damages to recover 2.38 M + forgone and that Co did not comply with her obligation under the sale contract to deliver the 37,200 arising from other sources of
(withdrawal of profits. When the CA relieved Co of estafa and civil liability, she filed for a Motion of cement to Lim. obligations
cement + price to Reconsider the civil liability. After, she also filed an action for specific These two civil liabilities may
increase) performance and damages against Co and all other parties to the withdrawal Since the damages in the first case arise from estafa, and the other arises from tort, there are be pursed separately without
authorities including FRCC. different causes of action which are separate and distinct. forum shopping.
Is it forum shopping for a private complainant to pursue a civil complaint for
specific performance and damages while appealing the judgment on the civil
aspect of a criminal case for estafa?

CriimPro

Mario Laroya and Roberto Capitulo figured in a car accident. Laryola filed a
criminal case for reckless imprudence against Casupanan (Capitulos driver).
Casupanan v. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a case against Llaroya for quasi-delict. When the civil
Laroya suit was filed, the criminal case was in its preliminary investigation. Laroya moved
G.R. No. 145391, to have the civil case dismissed on forum shopping due to pendency of the criminal
August 26, 2002 case. Casupanan insisted it was a separate civil action independently filed from the
criminal case. The MTCC and RTC affirmed the dismissal of the civil suit.
(car accident
Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence
counterclaims) can validly file simultaneously and independently a separate civil action for
quasi-delict against the private complainant.
Section 4 Effect of Death on Civil Actions
Respondent Lipata was charged with murder and after arraignment he entered a
plea of not guilty (October 26). The murder was witnessed by Lipatas sister who
allegedly saw him, Larry Lipata, and another companion hitting and stabbing the
victim multiple times using an icepick, tres cantos, and a broken Red Horse bottle.
Respondent Gerry Lipata alleges that he merely came to the aid of his brother
Larry.
The RTC ruled that since he alleged the justifying circumstance of defense of
People v. Lipata
relative, he admitted commission of the crime, hence burden of proof of innocence
G.R. No. 200302,
shifted to him. Finding the lack of evidence in proving unlawful aggression and
April 20, 2016
imminent danger on his brothers life, as well as implementing treachery, they were
guilty.
(tres-cantos, 10-year After the CA sent the records to the SC on June 10, 2011 for review and ordered the
no civil suit) confinement to the Bureau of Corrections, the QC Jail Warded sent a letter dated
October 22, 2012 that appellant passed away on February 13, 2011. The SC required
the parties to comment on the October 22, 2012 letter. Since he died before the CA
resolution, the SC ordered the substitution of the legal representatives of the estate
of the appellant and to comment on civil liability. The Public Attorneys Office
argued that since the civil liability here arose solely on the criminal liability, the
same does not survive death, therefore acquitted.
W/N he should still be held civilly liable.
The RTC convicted accused Cabugao and Ynzon of Reckless Imprudence resulting
Cabugao v. People
to Homicide. Being the physicians of 10-year old Rodolfo Palma, they failed
G.R. Nos. 163879 &
through negligence to perform immediate operation upon the patient. After
165805, July 30, 2015
complaining of an upset stomach, Rodolfos parents went to Cabugao, a general
practicitoner, to have him checked. When the meds didnt work, he suggested his
Section 3, Rule 111 states that the offended party may file an independent civil suit based on
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 for the Civil Code which requires merely preponderance of
evidence.
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is
accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the
present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused "may be litigated in a
separate civil action." This is only fair reasons: The right given by Section 3 to
First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is offended parties in filing a
deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separate civil action against the
separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does not file a accused must be read in
separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since the period consonance with the right of
continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed. accused to file a counter-claim
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the in a separate civil action.
Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is
independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil
action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case,
is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.
IN CONCLUSION The civil suit filed by Casupanan is PROPER. The order of dismissal
by the MTCC on forum shopping is erroneous.
It was concluded in People v. Bayotas that Upon death of accused pending appeal of
conviction, the criminal action is extinguished; the civil liability for recovery of ex delicto is
ipso facto extinguished with the criminal one. If the offended party still wishes to recover BAYOTAS RULES
damages from the same act complained, he must file a separate civil action predicated on (1) Death of accused
other sources of obligation. Hence, Bayotas requires the offended parties to file a separate extinguishes CRIMINAL
civil action right after the court notifies them of the death of the accused. and CIVIL EX-DELICTO
Contrary to PAOs manifestation, Cueno died due to accuseds fault he caused damage (2) Civil liability arising from
through deliberate acts, hence his civil liability ex-quasi-delicto may be judged. However, other obligations survives
records indicate that no separate civil action was instituted prior to the criminal case, (3) (2) may only be sought for
neither was there a reservation for such right filed for the case on the quasi-delict. The lack in a separate civil action
of filing a case for quasi-delict 10 years after Cuenos death bars them from recovering any subject under Section 1 of
damages. Rule 111
NOTE: Court forwarded a recommendation en banc to revise the Rules of Court to provide (4) Need not fear forfeiture of
speedy and appropriate remedies for the private party when the accused dies after conviction right; statute of limitations
by trial court but pending appeal. This is based on the fact that an acquittal based on interrupted upon filing of
reasonable doubt DOES NOT exempt civil liability ex-delicto which requires merely separate civil action.
preponderance of evidence. One is after the penal punishment and restoration of social order,
while the other is damages for the offended party. Such liabilities are different (even in old
Civil Code).
YES - The SC ruled that Cabugao, being a general practitioner, should NOT be held liable as he
lacks the skill to perform such. However, Ynzon SHOULD be liable it was already
established that surgery was to be performed. Hence, his non-performance of such resulted Bayotas Ruling
in the death.
CriimPro
(physicians caused confinement. The rectal examination revealed Acute Apendicitis hence he
recommended surgery to Dr. Ynzon, a surgeon. He was administered several
death of boy)
medicine, but the next day he vomited profusely, became unconscious, and died.
W/N petitioners conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
arising from medical malpractice was established
Private respondents Coronado entered into a lease agreement with the
Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna whereby the latter allowed the use and
enjoyment of property from March 1978 to 1998 extendable to 20 years.
After a fire razed the market, the Municipality ordered the propertys demolition
even though it was declared standing and intact. Arguing that the (1) lease still
existed, (2) willing to leave if given the same place in the new market, (3) absent
Asilo v. People
court order, its invalid, and (4) she will file unlawful detainer if proposals not
G.R. Nos. 159017-18 &
favorable, she refused to leave. When the maintained the order, respondent filed a
159059. March 9, 2011
civil suit. Spouses Bombasi also filed a criminal complaint for violation of Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
(Mayor demolition During the pendency of the case, Mayor Comendador died, and thus counsel for
Mayor filed manifestation of such on March 3, 2003. The SB rendered decision on
of public market)
April 2003 finding Comendador and Asilo guilty BRD of the criminal charges.
They were also ordered to pay plaintiff damages for the demolition of the store in
the civil case filed by respondent Coronado. They filed an MR to extinguish the
criminal liability, which was granted by the SB, but affirmed the civil liability since
it was a separate civil action.
W/N civil liability was extinguished
Appellant Nelson Bayot was charged with Rape on December 29, 1997.
Convicted on July 31, 2000 by the RTC testimony was sufficient,
People v. Bayot corroborated by medical examination, and unavailing sweetheart
G.R. No. 200030, defense
April 18, 2012 May 9, 2006 CA affirmed RTCs conviction and raised damages from
40,000 to 50,000 + 50,000 moral damages.
In a letter DATED May 29, 2006 Dr. Leopando of New Bilibid Prison
(rape case with no
informed CA that accused died on December 4, 2004.
civil damages) PAO appealed CA decision (May 31, 2006).
W/N accuseds civil liability survives
RULING ON CIVIL LIABILITY While the case was pending appeal, counsel for Dr. Ynzon
informed the court that the latter died on December 23, 2011 (multi-organ failure) evidenced
by a death certificate. Since he died pending appeal, his liabilities depend on the rules of
Bayotas. While the criminal liability is extinguished, as per Bayotas, civil liability not based
on the delict but by other obligations (in this case, reckless imprudence AND contract) may
be filed. A separate civil action may be enforced against the administrator of the estate and in
accordance with Section 4.
NO Comendador is still civilly liable (so is Angeles, the other engineer, if only his civil
Article 32(6) states that any
extinguishment was questioned before finality). In this case, Comendadors liability arises
public officer or employee, or
from another source of obligation (check doctrine). In any of the cases in this provision,
private individual, who directly
whether or not such act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the offended party MAY
or indirectly obstructs any of the
commence an entirely separate civil action for damages which proceeds independently of
following rights of another
the criminal prosecution.
person shall be liable for
The Court is in one with the prosecution that there was a violation of the right to
damages:
private property of the Spouses Bombasi. The accused public officials should have accorded
(6) Right against
the spouses the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution and New Civil Code. It
deprivation of
has repeatedly been held that even when theres a writ of execution, there must still be an
property without due
initial hearing and special order issued by the court for demolition. Notably, the separate civil
process of law
action based on violation of due process was further proven when it was filed ahead of the
criminal case and also when Comendadors wife substituted the accused and specified such
in the petition for the civil case.
NO - Appellants death on December 4, 2004, pending appeal to the CA extinguished
criminal AND civil liability ex-delictio.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability ex delicto. The
rationale, therefore, is that the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer The civil liability ex delicto is
a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil extinguished with the criminal
liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case. Evidently, liability upon the death of the
it is already unnecessary to rule on appellants appeal. Appellants appeal was still pending accused
and no final judgment had been rendered against him at the time of his death. Thus, whether
or not appellant was guilty of the crime charged had become irrelevant because even
assuming that appellant did incur criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, these were
totally extinguished by his death,
CriimPro
 Section 5 Judgment in a Civil Action Not a Bar
Respondent Janice-Young Chua and husband Eduardo filed a complaint for
NO - The declaration of RTC, Branch 84 in its Decision dated March 7, 1997 that the signature
replevin and damages (civil) against William Madarang and Evans Kho in the RTC
of private respondent in the Deed of Sale dated December 3, 1993 is genuine and she
of QC. Respondents are owners of a 1990 Dark Gray Kia Pride car wherein
voluntarily surrendered the car to petitioners is not res judicata in the criminal cases for
petitioners took possession of such through force and intimidation using a falsified
falsification and grave coercion because there is no identity of parties as the People of the Final judgment in a civil case
Deed of Sale. Madarang was charged with Falsification of a Public Document in the
Philippines is not a party in the replevin suit and cannot be bound by the factual findings separate from criminal
Madarang v. CA METC of QC (criminal). On the same date, they were charged by the METC with
therein. proceedings and which
G.R. No. 143044, Grave Coercion. Accused filed a Motion to Suspend Criminal Proceedings on the
It should be noted, however, that the CA modified the ruling of the RTC and stated absolves civil liability is NOT a
July 14, 2005 ground of prejudicial question claiming that the replevin case is related to the
that the application for Replevin is DENIED but the Deed of Sale is treated as an equitable bar to judgment of separate
issues pending in the METC which determines his guilt for falsification.
mortgage granting respondents the Right of Redemption of the subject vehicle. Furthermore, criminal charges.
The RTC ruled that the Deed of Sale was genuine and dismissed the
(replevin case for a the records do not show that the decision had become final and executory as it was pending
replevin claims. The MeTC denied the Motion to Suspend ruling that the replevin
appeal. Hence, a decision that has NOT become final and executory has no conclusive A decision that has NOT
KIA Pride) case was not determinative of the criminal charges. Accused then filed a motion to
affect. become final and executory has
dismiss the falsification case since the RTC ruled he was not liable in the civil suit
Also, Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court explicitly recognizes that "a final no conclusive affect.
for replevin. The METC (initially ruling for accused but recalling it) ruled in favor
judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is no bar
of respondents. The CA likewise affirmed, stating that in the replevin case, private
to a criminal action."
respondents are the offened while in the criminal case, it is the PEOPLE.
W/N accuseds contentions are correct

Section 6 Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question

Section 7 Elements of a Prejudicial Question

Respondent Arambulo along with other parties are the heirs of Spouses Pedro and
Prejudicial Question question
Anastacia Reyes. Anaped Estate was incorporated as part of the estate planning to
based on a fact distinct and
hold the estates of the Reyeses for the heirs. Jose Buban, VP and GM of Anaped, NO. PETITION DENIED While the case on the accounting for corporate funds does not
separate from crime but so
filed a complaint against respondent Victoria Arambulo and husband for failure to pose a prejudicial question, the case determining the election of Anaped directors and officers
intimately connected that it
People v. remit rentals collected from the time the ownership of the commercial apartments IS a prejudicial question. This issue essentially determines the authority of the officers to
determines guilt or innocence of
Arambulo was transferred to Anaped. Buban filed charges for estafa against respondents. act for and on behalf of Anaped. The charges of estafa against respondents involves the
accused.
Respondents filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground of Prejudicial question of money being received in trust by the offender. Thus, the elements of demand and
G.R. No. 186597, ELEMENTS:
Question due to the pendency of the two intra-corporate cases pending in the RTC. misappropriation bear relevance to the validity or invalidity of the authority of Anaped
June 17, 2015 (a) Civil case involves facts
(1) was filed by Victorias brother Oscar for accounting of corporate funds and directors and officers since the corporation is the one making demands, the authority to
intimately related to
annulment of sale and (2) filed by Victoria and other brothers questioning their make the demand must necessarily be established. If it is ruled that the Anaped directors
(Anaped Real criminal
elder brother Rodrigos authority as well as Anapeds BOD (Buban) to act on behalf were NOT validy elected, Victoria has every right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban. CA
(b) Guilt or innocence
Estate) of the corporation. They anchor that the resolution of these cases determine further noted that it is Victoria who has been in charge of management and collection of
determined in such
whether theyre authorized to demand for remittance. The CA ruled in rentals for 20 years the civil case questioning Buban Rodrigos authority to act on behalf of
(c) Jurisdiction to try said
respondents favor. the corporation is proper.
question lodged in another
W/N the CA erred in declaring that there exists a prejudicial question which calls
tribunal
for suspension of the criminal proceedings before the trial court.

CriimPro

San Miguel Properties (real estate) purchased from BF Homes, represented by Atty.
Orendain as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver appointed by SEC,
San Miguel
residential lots in BF Homes Paranaque for 106M. 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41
Properties v. Perez parcels of land purchased under a 3rd deed of sale were not delivered. BF Homes
G.R. No. 166836, claimed it withheld delivery because Orendain had ceased to be its rehab receiver
September 4, 2013 at the time of the transactions. San Miguel suied them for non-delivery of titles
under PD 957. It also filed a civil suit for specific performance in the HLURB.
(BF Homes TCTs)
W/N the administrative HLURB case for specific performance could be a reason
to suspend the proceedings in the criminal complaint for PD 957.
San Miguel Corporation filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against Spouses
Gaditano. The spouses, engaged in the sale of beer and softdrink products, issued
to SMC P 285,504 bought from SMC. The check was dishonored for insufficient
Spouses Gaditano
funds. Petitioners allege that their account was sufficient when they issued the
v. San Miguel check (April 7, 2000) because it came from a AsiaTrust Bank account wherein they
Corporation recently deposited 378,000 from Fatima Padua as payment for a loan she acquired
G.R. No. 188767, from the spouses. AsiaTrust apparently informed Florida on April 13 that the check
July 24, 2013 was not cleared due to a material alteration in the payees name, contending that it
was payable to LG Electronics, contrary to the assertions of Fatima. Petitioners
filing for specific performance against AsiaTrust Bank, SMC, and Fatima for
(Bad check for
unlawfully garnishing their bank accounts without court order and that they had
Beer) already paid to SMC their obligation was raised as a prejudicial question barring
the charges for BP 22.
W/N the case for specific performance was a prejudicial question
Maria Pimentel filed a case against petitioner Joselito Pimentel for frustrated
Pimentel v. parricide before the RTC of QC. Accused also received summons to appear before
Pimentel the RTC of Antipolo for pre-trial and trial of a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
G.R. No. 172060, Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings for frustrated parricide since
September 13, 2010 the relationship between the offender and victim is essential element in parricide
and thus the outcome of the civil case determines his guilt.
(Parricide +
The RTC ruled there was no prejudicial question. The CA affirmed since the crime
Declaration of was already committed during subsistence of marriage.
Nullity case)
W/N the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is a prejudicial question
Dreamwork Petitioner Dreamwork Construction filed a case against respondent Janiola for
violation of BP 22 (People v. Janiola). Respondent instituted a civil suit against
Construction v.
petitioner for rescission of alleged construction agreement between the parties.
Janiola
Respondent moved to Suspend Proceedings for the criminal case alleging that the
G.R. No. 184861,
facts and issues involved are intimately related to the resolution of the civil case
June 30, 2009
and thus determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
YES. PETITION DENIED Action for specific performance raises a prejudicial question. An
action for specific performance is a remedy entitled to the creditor when the debtor has failed
to fulfill his obligation. PD 957 is a law that regulates sale of subdivision lots and authorizes
suspension of license of real estate owners.
A party who raises a prejudicial
The action for specific performance in the HLURB would determine w/n San Miguel is
question is deemed to have
entitled to the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs. The resolution of such obviously determines
hypothetically admitted that all
W/N HLURB was obliged to deliver in the first place and if so may they be criminally charged
the essential elements of the
with withholding the TCTs. If Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in
crime have been adequately
the sale due to his termination by the SEC, the basis for criminal liability evaporates.
alleged in the information.
Worthy to note at this juncture is that a prejudicial question need not conclusively resolve
the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is enough for the prejudicial question to simply
test the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further
prosecution of the criminal case.
NO Petition DENIED. The issue in the criminal case is W/N petitioner is guilty of estafa
and violation of BP 22 while in the civil case, w/n AsiaTrust Bank had lawfully garnished the
378,000 from the account.
The material facts in the civil case bear NO relation to the criminal investigation being The alleged unlawful
conducted by the prosecutor. The prejudicial question in the civil case involves another garnishment of funds in an
checks dishonor which SMC is NOT privy to. The source of petitioners funds is NOT a account does NOT pose a
concern of SMC because the matter is between AsiaTrust and petitioners. The BP 22 case is prejudicial question in a BP 22
merely concerned with the issuance of a bad check and failure to make good on it after case since the latter is merely
demand. The law does not concern itself with who owns the account or what type of account concerned with the issuance of
its issued, nor on the intention of the maker. a bad check knowing such was
Even if AsiaTrust declares liable, petitioners cannot be free from BP 22 because mere issuance insufficient.
of a worthless check with knowledge of insufficiency is in itself a violation. This is further
proven by the failure to make good on the check after 3 demands, which attached their
liability.
NO First, Section 7 states that the civil action must filed before the criminal action. The The civil case must be
Declaration of Nullity was filed after the criminal case (October), hence, the defense cannot instituted before the criminal
be raised for failing to meet such requirement. one for a prejudicial question
Second The issue in annulment of marriage is NOT similar or intimately related to the defense.
parricide. The issue in parricide is w/n there was a killing, while in the civil case W/N theres
psychological incapacity to declare the marriage void. The relationship does NOT determine Subsequent declaration of
the guilt of offender. At the time of the crime they were married the subsequent dissolution nullity of marriage is NOT a
of such has no effect on the crime committed during subsistence. prejudicial question that affects
The defense that Declaration of Nullity retroacts to the day of celebration is untenable liability for parricide especially
(Tenebro v. CA). The issue in such case was the criminal liability for bigamy. There was NO when the crime was committed
prejudicial question. Second, the court ruled that while marriage may be void ab initio, it may during the subsistence of the
still produce legal consequences. A declaration of nullity does not affect the states penal laws. marriage.
The civil case must be
YES. PETITION GRANTED The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of
instituted before the criminal
the criminal action. The civil case was filed two years after the criminal complaint and from
case to avail of a prejudicial
the time that respondent withdrew its equipment from the job site. It was also instituted 2
question defense.
and half years from the time respondent allegedly stopped construction for no valid reason.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CIVIL CASE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CRIMINAL
BP 22 is mala prohibitum it
ACTION, THERE IS STILL NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
does NOT concern itself with
CriimPro
(Bad Check - W/N the CA erred in ruling that there was a prejudicial question The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for issuing such, the the consideration for issuance
terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding issuance are of the check as a prejudicial
Rescinded
irrelevant to prosecution for BP 22. The intent of the law is to punish he mere issuance of a question.
construction bad check. The existence of a valid contract to support the issuance of the check for valuable
agreement) consideration is NOT an element.

CriimPro