This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As regards petitioner's civil liability, this Court has previously ruled that an accused may be held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so warrant.[43] The rationale for this is simple. The criminal and civil liabilities of an accused are separate and distinct from each other. One is meant to punish the offender while the other is intended to repair the damage suffered by the aggrieved party. So, for the purpose of indemnifying the latter, the offense need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of evidence.[44] | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 29 of the Civil Code, when the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.[14] Thus, Section 1, paragraph (a) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides:SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) 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 the 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. | |||||