MELBA QUINTO vs.

DANTE ANDRES AND RANDYVER PACHECO

G.R. No. 155791. March 16, 2005. 453 SCRA 511 (2005)

Facts:

The petitioner, Melba Quinto filed an instant petition for review on the case of criminal and civil
liability of the accused Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco for the death of Wilson Quinto. Prior to the
petition filed, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac, Tarlac charging the
accused Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then
and there wilfully and unlawfully and felonious attack, assault and maul Wilson Quinto when they were
fishing inside the drainage culvert, causing Wilson Quinto to drown and die. Respondents then filed a
demurer to evidence which the trial court granted on ground of insufficiency of evidence. It could not held
the respondents liable for the damages because of the absence of preponderant of evidence to prove
their liability. The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals (CA) insofar as the civil aspect of
the case was concerned. In her brief, she averred that, the trial court erred in dismissed the and in ruling
that no preponderant of evidence exists to hold accused-appellees civilly liable for the death of the victim
Wilson Quinto.

Issue:

 WON the extinction of respondents criminal liability, likewise, carries with it the extinction of their
civil liability.
 WON preponderant of evidence exist to hold respondents civilly liable for the death of Wilson
Quinto.

Held:

Under Art. 100 of the RPC, Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the defense charged shall
be deemed instituted with criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
right to institute it separately of institute the civil action prior to the criminal action. The prime purpose
of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same
or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain
social order.21 The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the
private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of
the accused.22 While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime charged, it is required to prove the cause of action of the private complainant against the
accused for damages and/or restitution. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if
there is a finding in a final judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability
may arise does not exist.

Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. 'In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In the present case, the rule, as held by the trial court and the CA, the
prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the
respondents rest.
 SABINIANO DUMAYAG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 172778. November 26, 2012 686 SCRA 347 (2012)

Facts:

On July 6, 1995, at around 11:30 oclock in the morning, along the national highway in Magtalisay,
Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu, a passenger bus of Petrus Bus Liner (passenger bus), driven by petitioner,
collided with a tricycle driven by Elsie Genayas (Genayas), resulting in the death of four (4) persons and
causing physical injuries to five (5) others, who were all passengers of the tricycle. . The passenger bus
was bound for Dalaguete, Cebu, while the tricycle came from the opposite direction, going towards Cebu
City. At the time of the mishap, the tricycle was overtaking a Mitsubishi pick-up when it collided with a
passenger bus coming from the opposite direction. Petitioner was charged before the MTC with reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide for the deaths of Genayas, Orlando Alfanta (Alfanta), Grace
Israel (Israel), and Julius Amante (Amante); and with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries sustained by Crispin Cada, Jannette Bacalso, Carmela Lariosa, Fediliza Basco (Basco), and Nelfe
Agad (Agad) and damage to property.

Issue:

 Whether or not negligence, imprudence and recklessness was correctly attributed to petitioner
by the courts below when the vehicular mishap complained of.
 Whether or not the proximate cause of the death and injuries of the victim is attributed to the
recklessness of bus driver.

Held:

In order to establish a motorists liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that
there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained
of. Thus, to constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere
negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is
required. After going over the records of this case, the Court is unable to sustain the findings of fact and
conclusion reached by the courts below. The totality of the evidence shows that the proximate cause of
the collision was the reckless negligence of the tricycle driver, who hastily overtook another vehicle while
approaching a blind curve, in violation of traffic laws.

Considering that the proximate cause was the negligence of the tricycle driver and that negligence on the
part of petitioner was only contributory, there is a need to mitigate the amounts of the civil liability
imposed on the latter. The determination of the mitigation of the civil liability varies depending on the
circumstances of each case.

The immediate and proximate cause being the reckless and imprudent act of the tricycle driver, petitioner
is acquitted. Nevertheless, he is civilly liable. The rule is that an "acquittal of the accused, even if based on
a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on quasi-delict.
 ANTHONY L. NG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 173905. April 23, 2010. 619 SCRA 219 (2010)

Facts:

A Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 95 in Quezon City, in Criminal Case for Estafa or the Trust Receipts Law. Petitioner
Anthony Ng, then engaged in the business of building and fabricating telecommunication towers under
the trade name "Capitol Blacksmith and Builders," applied for a credit line with Asiatrust Development
Bank, Inc. (Asiatrust). Submitted the required documents for loan, Asiatrust approved petitioner’s loan
application. Petitioner was then required to sign several documents, among which are the Credit Line
Agreement, Application and Agreement for Irrevocable L/C, Trust Receipt Agreements,4 and Promissory
Notes. Though the Promissory Notes matured on September 18, 1997, the two (2) aforementioned Trust
Receipt Agreements did not bear any maturity dates as they were left unfilled or in blank by Asiatrust.
After petitioner received the goods, consisting of chemicals and metal plates from his suppliers, he utilized
them to fabricate the communication towers ordered from him by his clients which were installed in three
project sites, namely: Isabel, Leyte; Panabo, Davao; and Tongonan. As petitioner realized difficulty in
collecting from his client Islacom, he failed to pay his loan to Asiatrust. Asiatrust then conducted a surprise
ocular inspection of petitioner’s business through Villarva S. Linga, Asiatrust’s representative appraiser.
Asiatrust then endorsed petitioner’s account to its Account Management Division for the possible
restructuring of his loan. The parties thereafter held a series of conferences to work out the problem and
to determine a way for petitioner to pay his debts. However, efforts towards a settlement failed to be
reached. On March 16, 1999, Remedial Account Officer Ma. Girlie C. Bernardez filed a Complaint-Affidavit
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The above-named petitioner, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Ma. Girlie C. Bernardez by entering into a Trust Receipt
Agreement.

Issue:

 Whether or not the petitioner is liable for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC in relation to
PD 115.

Held:

ART. 315. Sec 1 (b) provides, Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by
misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property x x x.

Based on the definition and elements provided when committing estafa, the prosecution failed
to adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to satisfy the 2nd essential element that there was
misappropriation or conversion of subject money or property by petitioner, perhaps, there was no
misappropriation or conversion on his part, because his liability for the amount of the goods subject of
the trust receipts arises and becomes due only upon receipt of the proceeds of the sale and not prior to
the receipt of the full price of the goods. The state also was unable to prove the 3rd essential element of
the crime that the alleged misappropriation or conversion is to the prejudice of the real offended
property. And the absence of a demand (4th essential element) on petitioner necessarily results to the
dismissal of the criminal case. Thus, of the facts obtaining in the instant case, however, reveals that the
transaction between petitioner and Asiatrust is not a trust receipt transaction but one of simple loan.

Section 13. Penalty Clause.—The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of
the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were
not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of
estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act
Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

While petitioner admits to his civil liability to Asiatrust, he nevertheless does not have criminal
liability. It is a well-established principle that person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. To
overcome the presumption, his guilt must be shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA, JR., et.al v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 177276 August 2008, 2008 562 SCRA 723 (2008)

Facts:

While petitioner Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. (Graciano), Jeffrey Poquiz (Jeffrey) and Pedro Poquiz
(Pedro) were plying Burgos Street, they slowed down by Rommel's side, as the latter was fixing a tribike
in the middle of the street. Jeffrey instructed Rommel to move his tribike to the side of the road and to
fix it there. Rommel replied by uttering offensive and obscene words. Jeffrey went near Rommel and a
heated argument between the two followed. Jeffrey push Rommel, with the latter falling into the canal.
During the commotion, Rommel was stab with a screw driver and sustain three non-penetrating wounds.

On 25 March 1998, an Information for Frustrated Murder was filed before the RTC against
petitioner Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. (Graciano), Jeffrey Poquiz (Jeffrey) and Pedro Poquiz (Pedro). About
February 21, 1998 in the evening in the Poblacion, Municipality of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan,
xxx and within the jurisdiction of this [Honorable] Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill, with
treachery and superior strength, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and stab Rommel Camacho with a knife inflicting upon him injuries.

On 19 October 2006, petitioner alone filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
Court of Appeals in a Resolution17 dated 2 March 2007. Hence, the instant petition filed by petitioner
Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. Petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Issue:

 Whether or not the accused should be convicted on crime of frustrated murder or attempted
murder

Court Ruling:

The Court subscribe to the argument that petitioner and his companions be convicted of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder because the wounds inflicted were non-penetrating or not
mortal wounds. The rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death,
the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would
have brought about death. By commencing their criminal design by overt acts but failing to perform all
acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than their own desistance,
petitioner and his cohorts committed an attempted felony. In the instant case the three assailants already
commenced their attack with a manifest intent to kill by punching Rommel countless times and when one
of the malefactors stabbed him, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes
independent of his will, that is, the agility of the victim.