digest 2 caboverde

SALVADOR L. BUDLONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING THIRD ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL, CITY OF TAGBILARAN, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE AQUILES T. APALISOK, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING CITY JUDGE, CITY COURT, BRANCH II, CITY OF TAGBILARAN, AND CAMILO PUYO Y GALAGAR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:

                The petitioner filed information before the respondent court charging private respondent Camilo Puyon y Galagar with the crime of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. During the scheduled arraignment, on February 4, 1982, the accused pleaded guilty to the crime charged. Immediately after the plea the respondent judge rendered judgment in open court and sentenced the accused to suffer thirty (30) days of imprisonment and to pay the costs. No civil liability was imposed. At this same hearing, the accused manifested his intention to avail of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 968, the Probation Law, as amended. Acting on the manifestation, the respondent court gave the counsel of the accused five (5) days within which to file the petition for probation. On February 5, 1982, the petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set Case for Hearing for the reception of evidence to prove the civil liability of the accused. On February 11, 1982, the respondent court issued an order denying the aforesaid motion. On February 18, 1982, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 11, 1982 order. On February 19, 1982, the respondent court issued an order denying the aforesaid motion for reconsideration. The Acting Third Assistant City Fiscal decided to file this petition. On April 14, 1982, the issued a resolution. The petition is meritorious.

ISSUE:

Whether the Respondent Court has Committed has committed grave abuse on rendering judgment convicting the respondent without adjudication of Civil Liability?

RULING:

            The extinction and survival of civil liability are governed by Chapter Three, Title Five, Book One of the Revised Penal Code as follows:

ART. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

ART. 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.

If under Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code, the obligation to satisfy civil liability continues notwithstanding service of sentence or non-service due to amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other reason we fail to see what led the respondent judge to rule that an application for probation should have an opposite effect insofar as determination of civil liability is concerned. It could not have been delay because the motion was filed on the day after the judgment of conviction was rendered in open court right after the plea of guilty and the manifestation that the accused was applying for probation

The general rule is that "when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately." (Article 100, Revised Penal Code and Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court) In the instant case, the civil action was more than impliedly instituted because the information specifically alleged that there were physical injuries inflicted on the victim which would require medical attendance for a period of forty (40) days and would incapacitate the victim from performing his customary labor for the same period of time to the damage and prejudice of the latter and that the same would be "in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case."