[ G.R. No. 26737. July 31, 1969 ] 139 Phil. 429
[ G.R. No. 26737. July 31, 1969 ]
LAURA CORPUS, AND THE MINORS RICARDO, TERESITA AND CORAZON, ALL SURNAMED MARCIA AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER LAURA CORPUS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. FELARDO PAJE AND THE VICTORY LINER TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
CAPISTRANO, J.:
This is a direct appeal on questions of law from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 6880 of that court.
On December 23, 1956, a passenger bus of the Victory Liner Transportation Co., Inc. driven by Felardo Paje, collided within the municipality of Lubao, Pampanga, with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia, resulting in the latter’s death and in physical injuries to two other persons,
An information for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Felardo Paje in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The heirs of Clemente Marcia reserved their right to institute a separate civil action for damages. On November 7, 1960, the accused, Felardo Paje, was found guilty and convicted of the crime charged in the information. Said defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. On November 21, 1961, while defendant’s appeal was pending decision in the Court of Appeals, Clemente Marcia’s heirs, namely, his widow, Laura Corpus, and their minor children, instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 6880) for damages based upon the criminal act of reckless imprudence against Felardo Paje and the Victory Liner Transportation Co., Inc., defendants, praying that said defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally the amounts of damages claimed by the plaintiffs. On November 9, 1962, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in the appeal of Felardo Paje reversing the appealed judgment and acquitting the appellant after finding that the reckless imprudence charged against him did not exist, and that the collision was a case of pure accident.
On December 29, 1962, the defendants filed in the civil action a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the acquittal by the Court of Appeals of the defendant Felardo Paje in the criminal action. The motion was denied.
At the pre-trial of the civil case, the defendants asked the court to rule on their special defense that plaintiffs’ cause of action n based upon a quasi-delict had prescribed considering that the complaint was brought four years and eleven months after the collision and that according to Article 1144 of the Civil Code an action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four years. The lower court, in its order of May 31, 1966, dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs’ action was based upon a quasi-delict and that it had prescribed. The plaintiffs appealed direct to this Court on questions of law from the order dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs-appellants contend that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint. The contention is unmeritorious in view of the following considerations.
(1) The acquittal of the defendant Felardo Paje by the Court of Appeals in the criminal action on the ground that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence charged against him did not exist and that the collision was a case of pure accident, was a bar to the civil action for damages for the death of Clemente Marcia, which action was based upon the same criminal negligence of which the defendant Felardo Paje was acquitted in the criminal action. In the celebrated case of Chantangco vs. Abaroa, which was an appeal from the Philippine Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court, 218 U.S. 476; 54 L. Ed., 1116; 40 Phil., 1056, Mr. Justice Lurton, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, said:
“It is true that one of the plaintiffs in the present case reserved whatever right he may have had to bring a civil action. This was obviously of no avail, inasmuch as there resulted a judgment for the defendant, and the plain inference from the foregoing is that a verdict of acquittal must carry with it exemption from civil responsibility.”
Criminal negligence, that is, reckless imprudence, is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code which authorizes the institution of an independent civil action, that is, of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence. Said article mentions only the crimes of defamation, fraud (estafa) and physical injuries. Although in the case of Dyogi, et al. vs. Yatco, et al., G. R. No. L-9623, January 22, 1957, this Court held that the term “physical injuries” used in article 33 of the Civil Code includes homicide,[1] it is to be borne in mind that the charge against Felardo Paje was for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, and not for homicide and physical injuries. In the case of People vs. Buan, G.R. No. L-25366, March 29,1968, Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, speaking for the Supreme Court, said that the “offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.” It is, therefore, clear that the charge against Felardo Paje was not for homicide but for reckless imprudence, that is, criminal negligence resulting in homicide (death of Clemente Marcia) and double physical injuries suffered by two other persons. As reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code, there is no independent civil action for damages that may be instituted in connection with said offense. Hence, homicide through reckless imprudence or criminal negligence comes under the general rule that the acquittal of the defendant in the criminal action is a bar to his civil liability based upon the same criminal act notwithstanding that the injured party reserved[2] his right to institute a separate civil action (Chantangco vs. Abaroa, supra). In the language of the Rules of Court (Rule 111, Sec. 3), the extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist, necessarily extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act.
(2) Assuming, arguendo, that the civil action for damages for the death of Clemente Marcia was based upon a quasi-delict,[3] the trial court’s finding that on that basis the action had prescribed is correct. An action upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four (4) years (Article 1146, Civil Code). The four-year prescriptive period began to run from the day the quasi-delict was committed, or from December 23, 1956, and the running of the said period was not interrupted by the institution of the criminal action for reckless imprudence. (Paulan vs. Sarabia, G.R. No. L-10542, July 31, 1958.)
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the order appealed from is affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Castro, Fernando, and Barredo, JJ., concur. Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, and Teehankee, JJ., in the result. Reyes, J.B.L., and Zaldivar, JJ., did not take part.