8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

[No. 22063. September 30, 1924]

LUCIO FRANCISCO, plaintiff and appellant, vs.

CRISPULO ONRUBIA, defendant and appellee.

1. PENAL ACTION; CIVIL ACTION; WHEN A CIVIL

ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED SEPARATELY.—
Under the criminal procedure now in force in this
jurisdiction, he who alleges having been prejudiced by the
commission of a crime or misdemeanor may bring a civil
action independently from the criminal; but once the
criminal action is instituted, the civil is deemed also to
have been brought, unless the person injured or
prejudiced has waived the same or made an express
reservation for bringing the same after the termination of
the criminal case, should he have any right thereto. (Art.
122 of the Law of Criminal Procedure.) And the civil
action reserved by the party injured will be allowed after
the termination of the criminal proceeding only when he
has a right thereto, that is to say, when the judgment
rendered is one of conviction, or, in case

328

328 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Francisco vs. Onrubia,

the accused is acquitted, the complaint is based on some

other fact or ground different from the criminal act. But
an action based on the same facts that were the subject-
matter of the criminal case cannot be maintained when by
a final judgment it was declared that the fact from which
the civil action could have arisen did not exist, according
to article 116 of the said Law of Criminal Procedure,
which provides that the extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it the extinction of the civil one, unless the
extinction is caused by a declaration in a final judgment
that the fact upon which the civil action could have arisen
did not exist.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

2. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1902 OF CIVIL CODE.—Article 1902

of the Civil Code has no application in the instant case,
first, because said article presupposes the existence of
fault or negligence upon which the action is based, and
second, it refers to a fault or negligence not punishable by
law, because if the fault or negligence is punished by law,
it ceases to be the quasi crime of negligence having purely
civil effects, and becomes a crime or misdemeanor,
according to the gravity of the penalty imposed by the law,
and in that case it comes within the purview of article
1092 of the Civil Code. Under the facts set forth in the
complaint, if there was any fault or negligence on the part
of the defendant, it must necessarily be a fault punishable
by law (arts. 568, 590, and 604 of the Penal Code), for
through said fault he caused the death of the plaintiff's
son. Homicide through reckless imprudence is punished as
a crime, and there-fore the provisions applicable would be
those of the Penal Code and the Law of Criminal
Procedure above cited.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Manila. Del Rosario, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Raymundo B. Ferrer for appellant.
Paredes, Buencamino & Yulo for appellee.

VILLAMOR, J.:

The plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant,

sentencing him to pay the sum of P4,500 as damages for
the death of his son Anselmo Francisco, with the costs of
the action. It is alleged as the cause of action that on or
about November 25, 1922, in the City of Manila, P. I., the
said defendant, being the chauffeur and person in charge of
automobile No. 6674, drove and operated said automobile
329

VOL, 46, SEPTEMBER 30, 1924 329

Francisco vs. Onrubia

on Calle Azcarraga in a careless and negligent manner and

in violation of the traffic regulation, causing it to run at an
unusual speed, thereby overrunning on said Calle
Azcarraga a child 9 years old by the name of Anselmo
Francisco, as a result of which, the said Anselmo Francisco
received wounds on several parts of his body, which caused
his death almost instantaneously; that the aforesaid child

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

Anselmo Francisco is a son of the herein plaintiff, was

living under his custody, and assisted him in his work and
labor, and was, also rendering not less valuable services to
his mother; and that by reason of the death of the aforesaid
child Anselmo Francisco, caused by the defendant, the
herein plaintiff, as well as his wife, was deprived of the
services that said child was rendering up to the date of his
death, and of those he may render in the future, which
must be considered as doubly important, thus having
suffered damages in the sum of four thousand five hundred
pesos (P4,500).
The defendant filed a general and specific denial of the
facts alleged in the complaint, and as a special defense,
alleged:

"1. That prior to the date of the complaint, said

defendant was prosecuted in this same court for
homicide through reckless imprudence, criminal
case No. 24994, 'The People of the Philippine
Islands vs. Crispulo Onrubia y Julian,' upon the
same f acts that are now alleged as a cause of action
of the complaint, as evidenced by a copy of the
information presented in that action, which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof marked
Exhibit 1.
"2. That the information mentioned in the preceding
paragraph was presented upon a complaint and at
the instance of the herein plaintiff and of the heirs
of the deceased Anselmo Francisco, none of whom
has reserved the right to bring later such civil
action as may arise from the facts set forth in the
information, nor stated, or indicated in any manner
his desire not to be understood as bringing the
proper civil action together with said criminal case.

330

330 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Francisco vs. Onrubia

"3. That after the proper proceedings, and the court

having full jurisdiction over the subject-matter and
the person of the defendant, accused therein, a
judgment of acquittal was rendered, a copy of which
is attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit 2, holding that the said accused did not
drive the automobile he was operating at an

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

exaggerated or unreasonable speed, was not

responsible for any imprudence, fault, carelessness
or negligence whatsoever, and did not violate any
regulation in connection with said death."

At the trial of this case, the attorney for the defendant

proposed a stipulation of facts, which was accepted by the
attorney for the plaintiff and is as follows:

"(a) That prior to the date of the complaint said

defendant was prosecuted in this same court for
homicide thru reckless imprudence, criminal case
No. 24994, entitled 'The People of the Philippine
Islands vs. Crispulo Onrubia y Julian,' upon' the
same facts now alleged as the cause of action of the
plaintiff's complaint, a copy of the information
therein filed being attached to the answer as
Exhibit 1.
"(b) That the information mentioned in the preceding
paragraph was presented upon a complaint and at
the instance of the herein plaintiff and the heirs of
the deceased Anselmo Francisco.
"(c) That after the proper proceedings, and the court
having full jurisdiction over the subject-matter and
the person of the defendant, accused therein, a
judgment of acquittal was rendered, a copy of which
is attached to the answer as Exhibit 2."

Upon the facts agreed upon by the parties, the trial judge
rendered judgment, dismissing the case without costs, on
the ground that, the defendant having been acquitted in
the criminal case for not having been guilty of any fault,
negligence, or carelessness, no judgment can be rendered
against him for the damages arising from the same facts.
331

VOL. 46, SEPTEMBER 30, 1924 331

Francisco vs. Onrubia

This is the judgment sought by the appellant to be

reversed.
This court has oftentimes discussed the procedure,
prescribed by the Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure for
determining the civil liability arising from a crime. In the
case of Springer vs. Odlin (3 Phil., 344), it was said:
"By General Orders, No. 58, section 107, the privileges
secured by the Spanish law to persons claiming to be
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

injured by the commission of an offense to take part in the

prosecution of the offense and to recover damages for the
injury sustained by reason of the same, are preserved and
remain in force, and it is therein expressly provided that
the court, upon conviction of the accused, may enter
judgment in favor of the injured person against the
defendant in the criminal case for the damage occasioned
by the wrongful act."
In Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company (7 Phil.,
359), it was held:
"According to article 112, the penal action once started,
the civil remedy should be sought therewith, unless it had
been waived by the party injured or been expressly
reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the
civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime
that could be enforced only on private complaint, the penal
action thereunder should be extinguished."
In the case of United States vs. Guy-Sayco (13 Phil.,
292), this court, construing articles 17, 121 and 122 of the
Penal Code, held:
"In deciding a cause, the civil responsibility incurred by
the accused, consequent upon his criminal liability, must
be declared, because every person criminally responsible
for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable, and the
courts are obliged to fix the amount of indemnity for
damages in the terms prescribed for the reparation of
damage caused by the crime. (Arts. 17, 121 and 122, Penal
Code.)"

332

332 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Francisco vs. Onrubia

The same doctrine is maintained in United States vs.

Bernardo (19 Phil., 265).
There is no doubt that under the criminal procedure now
in force in this jurisdiction, he who alleges having been
prejudiced by the commission of a crime or fault may bring
a civil action independently from the criminal; but once the
criminal action is instituted, the civil is deemed also to
have been brought, unless the person injured or prejudiced
has waived the same or made an express reservation for
bringing the same after the termination of the criminal
case, should he have any right thereto. (Art. 122 of the Law
of Criminal Procedure.) And the civil action reserved by the
party injured will be allowed after the termination of the
criminal proceeding only when he has a right thereto, that
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

is to say, when the judgment rendered is one of conviction,

or, in case the accused is acquitted, the complaint is based
on some other fact or ground different from the criminal
act. But an action based on the same facts that were the
subject-matter of the criminal case cannot be maintained
when by a final judgment it was declared that the fact from
which the civil action could have arisen did not exist,
according to article 116 of the said Law of Criminal
Procedure, which provides that the extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil one,
unless the extinction is caused by a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact upon which the civil action could
have arisen did not exist.
And this logically follows from the provision of article 17
of the Penal Code: "Every person criminally liable for a
felony or misdemeanor is also civilly liable." That is to say,
if the criminal liability carries with it the civil one, the
exemption from criminal liability implies exemption from
civil liability.
The supreme court of Spain in a judgment rendered
January 3, 1887, laid down this doctrine: "In order to
establish the civil liability in a criminal case, it is necessary
that the same spring from, or be a consequence of, the

333

VOL. 46, SEPTEMBER 30, 1924 333

Francisco vs. Onrubia

criminal liability; and, therefore, if the defendant is

acquitted of a crime, a judgment, sentencing him to pay a
determinate indemnity by reason of the same crime,
violates this article." (The article cited is art. 17 of the
Penal Code.)
In another judgment rendered December 20, 1882, that
high court says: "That a person not criminally liable for a
crime or misdemeanor, cannot be civilly liable, under the
provision of article 18 of the Penal Code (17 of the
Philippine) and the trial court not having held so has
violated said articles 18 and 21 and committed the error of
law mentioned in article 849, case No. 4, of the Revised
Compilation."
In a relatively recent judgment, namely, of February 25,
1891, the same supreme court held: "That a judgment
acquitting the defendants on the ground that neither the
crime charged, nor the guilt of the accused, was proven
decides all the points of the prosecution and the defense,
and their criminal liability not having been established, it
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

is impossible to make any finding of civil liability which is

accessory to the criminal."
The question raised in this appeal is the same as that
put in issue and decided in the case of Almeida Chan Tanco
vs. Abaroa (8 Phil., 178). In that case, the act complained of
in the civil action brought by the plaintiffs was the same
one imputed by one of them to the defendant, to wit, that of
having set fire to, or burnt, a store with the goods therein
contained, which belonged to them, and which was the
subject of a criminal prosecution for the crime of
incendiarism against the said defendant Abaroa, although
the latter was acquitted by a judgment of the trial court,
affirmed by this court, for lack of sufficient evidence to
show his participation in the criminal act. This court in a
decision rendered per curiam, held:
"The full and complete acquittal of an accused
necessarily implies his innocence of, and freedom from
responsibility for, the crime of which he was accused. (Rule
51
334

334 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Francisco vs. Onrubia

of the Provisional Law for the application of the Penal

Code.)
"The judgment which fully acquits the accused persons,
settles in an explicit manner all the points in question, not
only in the accusation but those of the defense, in
accordance with the established jurisprudence of the
supreme tribunal of Spain, the provisions of article 742 of
the Law of Criminal Procedure of 1882, and article 839 of
the Compilation.
"Those persons not criminally responsible for an offense
or misdemeanor cannot be made civilly responsible, (art. 17
of the Penal Code); from which precept it is a logical
consequence that exemption from criminal responsibility
carries with it exemption from civil responsibility.
(Decisions of the supreme court of Spain, January 3, 1877,
and December 20, 1882.)
"The accused once found by the court not to have been
the author of an offense and being acquitted of the
accusation, under no condition can he be made civilly
responsible for the harm caused and for the damages and
losses suffered by reason of the criminal act."
In that decision this court says: "It is not possible to
conceive, if it is not permitted to find against an accused
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

acquitted of civil responsibility in a criminal case, how he

can be held responsible for the same in a civil case in the
absence of any law authorizing the same, and this is an
inexplicable counter-course.
"It cannot be conceived legally that an act of setting fire
executed intentionally is not constitutive of the crime of
arson, and that its author, without being found personally
responsible according to the penal law, is to be only civilly
responsible therefor."
That case was brought by a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which, in affirming the
judgment appealed from (21.8 U. S., 476; 54 L. ed., 1116; 40
Phil., 1056), laid the following doctrine:
"A civil action for indemnification for the damages
resulting from the malicious or unlawful burning of a store-
335

VOL. 46, SEPTEMBER 30, 1924 335

Francisco vs. Onrubia

house and its contents may not be maintained in the

Philippine courts, where there has been a judgment of
acquittal against the same defendant for the same
malicious and unlawful burning, in view of the positive
legislation in the Philippine codes, civil and criminal,
drawing a distinction between a civil liability which results
from the mere negligence of the defendant, and a liability
for the civil consequences of a crime by which another has
sustained loss or injury, and of the plain inference from
article 17 of the Penal Code, that civil liability springs out
of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would
constitute a crime or misdemeanor, and of the provisions of
Code of Criminal Procedure sections 108, 112, 742, which
plainly contemplate that the civil liability of the defendant
shall be ascertained and declared in the criminal
proceedings."
In Wise & Co. vs. Larion (45 Phil., 314), the same
doctrine was maintained:
"While it is true that a civil action may be maintained by
an employer to recover money misappropriated by his
employee without the prior institution of a criminal
proceeding, nevertheless if a criminal prosecution based
upon the same misappropriation is in fact instituted
against the employee and he is acquitted, such acquittal
operates as a bar to any subsequent civil action."
Thus it is seen that the constant jurisprudence of this
court upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

sustains and supports the judgment appealed from. But the

appellant insists that under article 1902 of the Civil Code,
he has the right to institute this action, notwithstanding
the judgment of acquittal rendered in the criminal case
against the defendant upon the same cause of action. We
are of the opinion, and so hold, that said article 1902 has
no application in the instant case, first, because said article
presupposes the existence of fault or negligence upon which
the action is based, and second, it refers to a fault or
negligence not punishable by law.

336

336 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Francisco vs. Onrubia

Article 1902, says:

"Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to
another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the
damage so done."
This statutory provision, however, must be understood
as subordinated to article 1093 of the same code, which
provides:
"Those arising from wrongful or negligent acts or
omissions not punishable by law shall be subject to the
provisions of chapter second of title sixteen of this book."
Article 1902 is found precisely in chapter 2, title 16,
book 4, of the Civil Code, so that in order that said article
1902 may be applied, it is necessary that the negligence or
fault in question be not punished, by law. And this is so
because if the fault or negligence is punished by the law, it
ceases to be the quasi crime of negligence having purely
civil effects, and becomes a crime or misdemeanor,
according to the gravity of the penalty imposed by the law,
and in that case it comes within the purview of article 1092
of the Civil Code, which provides:
"Civil obligations arising from crimes or misdemeanors
shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code."
Under the facts set forth in the complaint, if there was
any fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, it
must necessarily be a fault punishable by law (arts. 568,
590 and 604 of the Penal Code), for through said fault he
caused the death of the plaintiff 's son. Homicide through
reckless imprudence is punished as a crime, and therefore
the provisions applicable would be those of the Penal Code
and the Law of Criminal Procedure above cited.
For all of the foregoing the judgment appealed from
must be, as is hereby, affirmed with costs against the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Ostrand, JJ.,

concur.

337

VOL. 46, OCTOBER 1, 1924 337

Quiogue vs. Romualdez

ROMUALDEZ, J., concurring:

I concur in the result. I believe, however, that this case is

different from Almeida Chan Tanco vs. Abaroa. There
malice or illegality was alleged and the action was based on
article 1092 of the Civil Code; whereas in the instant case
no malice is alleged, nor is the action based on article 1092
of the Civil Code, but on article 1093 thereof.
Judgment affirmed.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001658465d8d1dadb14cd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10