1. Implied Institution of Civil Action Ex Delicto

C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)

RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION

General Rule

The institution or filing of the criminal action includes therein the institution of civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged (Rule 111, Sec. 1).

Exception/s:

When the offended party:

• Waives the civil action;
• Reserves his right to institute the civil action separately; or
• Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (Rule 111, Sec. 1).

NOTE: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged or civil liability “ex delicto.” (Solidum v. People, G.R. No. 192123, 2014).

NOTE: Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. (Lee v. Chua, G.R. No. 181658, 2013).

Note on juridical persons: Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a juridical person may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of the civil aspect thereof. Nonetheless, the substantive right of a creditor to recover due and demandable obligations against a debtor-corporation cannot be denied or diminished by a rule of procedure.

Technically, nothing in Section 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits the reservation of a separate civil action against the juridical person on whose behalf the check was issued. What the rules prohibit is the reservation of a separate civil action against the natural person charged with violating B.P. Blg. 22, including such corporate officer who had signed the bounced check.

The civil action that is impliedly instituted based on B.P. 22 is only the civil liability of the signatory and not of the corporation itself. The distinctness of the cause of action against the signatory and that against the corporation is rendered beyond dispute. (Gosiaco vs. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, 2009)

Updated: The offended party may intervene through counsel even after trial court judgment or on appeal if the civil action has not been waived or otherwise lost (Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 255367, 2 October 2024).

Where No Reservation Shall Be Allowed

• Criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 and Estafa: Unless a separate civil action has been filed before the institution of the criminal action, no such civil action can be instituted after the criminal action has been filed as the same has been included therein.

NOTE: Where the civil action has been filed separately before the criminal action, it may be consolidated upon application with the court trying the latter case.

NOTE: The civil liability arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the BP 22 violation. In the crimes of both estafa and violation of BP 22, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court expressly allows, even automatically, the institution of a civil action without need of election by the offended party. (Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, 2005)

• A claim arising from an offense which is cognizable by the SB – a civil action filed prior to the criminal action has to be transferred to the subsequently filed criminal action for consolidation and joint determination with the civil action. (P.D. No.1606 as amended by R.A. No. 8249, Sec. 4);

NOTE: The filing of the criminal action shall be deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized. However, where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment has not been rendered, and a criminal case is filed before the Sandiganbayan or appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred thereto. Otherwise, the civil action shall be deemed abandoned. (P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, Sec. 4)

• Tax cases (R.A. No. 9282, Sec. 7[b][1]); and
• Civil actions, which can be filed and prosecuted independently of the criminal action, namely, those provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.

Although the criminal and civil actions may be joined in the criminal case, they are distinct from each other. The plaintiffs in the two actions are different.

THEREFORE: Even if the accused started serving his sentence within the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment of conviction by the lower court, thereby making the judgment against him final, the complainant may, within the 15-day reglementary period, still ask that the civil liability be fixed by the court, if the judgment does not adjudicate any civil liability, as the judgment regarding civil liability has not become final and the court still has jurisdiction to adjudge the civil liability.

NOTE: Only civil liability arising from crime charged (cause of action arising from delict) as a felony is deemed instituted. Civil liability arising from other sources of obligations (law, quasicontract and quasi-delict) are no longer deemed instituted such as those under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code which can be prosecuted even without reservation.

NOTE: Institution of a criminal case includes the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged. The inclusion of the civil action is to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Article 100 of the RPC states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (People v. Rayos, G.R. No. 200942, 2015)

REASONS:

• The counterclaim of the accused will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings;
• The trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime.

HOWEVER: The accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to file a separate civil action in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy. 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. (Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 2002).