Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Manantan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Glomarie Gonayon
    Manantan was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after a car accident caused the death of Nicholas. Manantan was acquitted in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. The issue is whether Manantan's acquittal also extinguished his civil liability. The court ruled that an acquittal due to reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability. While an acquittal where the accused is found not responsible for the act does remove civil liability. As Manantan was found to have recklessly and negligently driven, causing the accident, his acquittal did not remove his civil liability to indemnify the victim's family.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manantan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Glomarie Gonayon
    20 views2 pages
    Manantan was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after a car accident caused the death of Nicholas. Manantan was acquitted in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. The issue is whether Manantan's acquittal also extinguished his civil liability. The court ruled that an acquittal due to reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability. While an acquittal where the accused is found not responsible for the act does remove civil liability. As Manantan was found to have recklessly and negligently driven, causing the accident, his acquittal did not remove his civil liability to indemnify the victim's family.

    Original Description:

    sfdgsd sdfg

    Original Title

    Manantan vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Manantan was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after a car accident caused the death of Nicholas. Manantan was acquitted in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. The issue is whether Manantan's acquittal also extinguished his civil liability. The court ruled that an acquittal due to reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability. While an acquittal where the accused is found not responsible for the act does remove civil liability. As Manantan was found to have recklessly and negligently driven, causing the accident, his acquittal did not remove his civil liability to indemnify the victim's family.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Manantan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Glomarie Gonayon
    Manantan was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after a car accident caused the death of Nicholas. Manantan was acquitted in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. The issue is whether Manantan's acquittal also extinguished his civil liability. The court ruled that an acquittal due to reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability. While an acquittal where the accused is found not responsible for the act does remove civil liability. As Manantan was found to have recklessly and negligently driven, causing the accident, his acquittal did not remove his civil liability to indemnify the victim's family.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MANANTAN vs CA

    FACTS:
    On the 25th day of September 1982, Fiscal Wilfredo Ambrocio invited Ruben Nicholas to catch
    shrimps at his farm and ordered him to borrow the Ford Fiera of Manantan. When Ruben went to
    Manantan, the latter wanted to come along. Ambrocio and Ruben Nicolas went to Manantan
    Technical School and they drank beer. Thereafter, they went to the farm and consumed one case
    of beer. At 12 noon, they went home. After two to three hours, Tabangin, Nicholas and
    Manantan went to Ambrocio with a duck and consumed another case of beer. At about 8:30,
    Manantan invited them to go bowling and while they were waiting for a vacant alley, they again
    drank beer. Thereafter, they went to LBC Night Club and after 1 hour they left to eat arrozcaldo.
    As they went home that was the time when they figured into an accident, causing the life of
    Nicholas. The petitioner Manantan was charged by the Provincial Fiscal of Isabela with reckless
    imprudence resulting to homicide. The provincial fiscal filed this information on June 1, 1983
    within the Municipality of Santiago, Isabela. The accused was the driver and person-in-charge of
    an automobile with the Plate No. NGA-816. Manantan willfully and recklessly drove the vehicle
    in a negligent manner which ended up sideswiping a passenger jeepney. Which caused the
    Jeepney to turn turtle twice that ultimately ended with the death of Ruben Nicolas, a passenger of
    the jeepney. On a decision dated June 30, 1938 which was later promulgated on August 4, 1988,
    the trial court reached a decision in favor of Manantan. With the subsequent turn of events the
    private respondent spouses Nicolas filed their notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the trial
    courts judgment. The spouses Nicolas prayed that the decision appealed from be modified and
    that the appellee be ordered to pay indemnity and damages. The court reached a decision wherein
    the Court of Appeals decided in favor of the private respondents. With regards to the civil
    liability the court a quo stated that during the time that the accident occurred. Manantan was in a
    state of heavily inebriated after consuming at least twelve bottles of beer between 9 a.m. to 11
    p.m. The petitioner opted for reconsideration but the appellate court denied it vehemently.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the acquittal of the accused also extinguished his civil liability.
    RULING:
    No, it is quite evident that the law recognizes two different kinds of acquittal, with
    entirely different effects regarding the civil liability of the accused. First and foremost, the
    grounds pertaining to the acquittal of the accused is not the main reason for the act or omission
    complained of as a felony. In this particular instance this relinquish the civil liability for a person
    who has been found not to be the perpetrator of any act or omission shall not be and should never
    be held liable for such an act or omission. This surmise that there is no delict, civil liability ex
    delicto is entirely out of the question and therefore the civil action if there is any. Which will be
    instituted should be based on the grounds other the delict that was complained of.
    The secondary instance is an acquittal that was based on reasonable doubt regarding the
    guilt of the accused has not been duly established. In this case at hand the acquittal was primarily
    based on reasonable doubt. It was clearly stated that the accused was recklessly imprudent or
    negligent. Which evidently prompted the court to acquit him on the main contention of a
    reasonable doubt. Since civil liability is not extinguished in a criminal case if the accused is
    acquitted on reasonable doubt. The decision of the Court of Appeals states that the defendant is
    civilly liable for negligent and reckless of driving his automobile which was the proximate cause
    of the vehicular accident and to indemnify the plaintiff for a sum of money due to the death of
    Ruben Nicolas.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy