JARANTILLA v CA (SING) 171 SCRA 429REGALADO; March 21, 1989 NATURE A p pe a l o n t he de c i s i o n o f t h e C o ur t o f A p pe a l s upholding the decision of the trial court

awarding damages to the private respondent. FACTS - Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart Street, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the s a i d v e h i c l e w h i c h f i g u r e d i n t h e m i s h a p , a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward t h e di r e ct i o n o f t h e p r o v i n ci a l ca pi to l , a n d t ha t private respondent sustained physical injuries as a consequence Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207thereof. P r i v a t e r es po n d en t , a s t he co mp l a i n i ng witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute a s ep a r a te ci v i l a c ti o n a n d he i nt er v e ne d i n th e prosecution of said criminal case through a private prosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case "on reasonable doubt".- On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, docketed therein a s Ci v i l Ca s e N o . 9 9 7 6, a n d w hi ch ci v i l a c t i o n i n v o l v e d t h e s a m e s u b j e c t m a t t e r a n d a c t complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. I n h i s answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latters cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as w he n s a i d cr i m i na l c a s e w a s i ns t i tu t e d t h e c i v i l liability was also deemed instituted since therein plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively participated in the criminal case.- Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein defendant, the trial court issued on April 3, 1975 an order of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in this C o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r

Certiorari pr o h i b i ti o n a n d mandamus, which was docketed as G.R. No. L40992, assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Courts r e s o l u t i o n o f J u l y 2 3 , 1 9 7 5 , a n d a m o t i o n f o r reconsideration thereof was denied for the same reason in a resolution of October 28, 1975.- After trial, the court below rendered judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay damages. Thus, petitioner appealed said decision to the CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court with a few changes in the amount of the damages to be paid. ISSUE W O N t h e p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t , w h o w a s t h e c o mp l a i n a n t i n t h e cr i mi na l a ct i o n f o r p hy s i ca l i n j u r i e s t h r u r e c k l e s s i m p r u d e n c e a n d w h o p a r t i ci pa te d i n t h e pr o s ec u ti o n t h er eo f w i t ho u t r es e r v i ng t h e c i v i l a ct i o n a r i s i ng f r o m t h e a c t o r omission complained of, can file a separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal HELD YES- The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such separate civil action for damages. Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is constitutive of a case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill that:... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also actually charged criminally, to recover damages on b o t h s c o r e s ; a n d w o u l d b e e n t i t l e d i n s u c h eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. I n o t h er w o r ds , th e ex t i n c ti o n o f c i v i l l i a b i l i ty referred to in Par. (c)

of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100o f t he R ev i s ed P e na l Co d e ; w he r e a s t h e c i v i l liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused . . .- The afforested case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & TaxiCo., Inc., et al. involved virtually the same factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to f i l e a s e p a r a t e c i v i l c a s e i s n o t f a t a l ; t h a t h i s intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages, especially considering that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action, the criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code while the subsequent complaint for damages was based on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code.- Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt, it could very well make a pronouncement on the civil liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to i n c l u d e s u c h c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n t h e j u d g m e n t o f acquittal. And that the failure of the court to make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to t h e c i v i l l i a b i l i t y o f t h e a c c u s e d a m o u n t s t o a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action. The r ul es no w h er e p r o v i d e t h a t i f t he c o ur t fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. Dispositive: Decision of CA affirmed, petition denied.