ASELA P. TACTAQUIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE B. PALILEO, DE­FENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Tactaquin versus Palileo

The Case

This is a civil action for damages brought by Asela Tactaquin against Jose Palileo, arising from a vehicular accident in which the defendant's recklessly driven car struck and killed her daughter and inflicted serious physical injuries upon her. The mother seeks to recover indemnity for the death and the injuries. The case matters because it fixes the procedural rule on how an offended party preserves the civil action for damages when a criminal prosecution is simultaneously instituted — specifically, when and how the reservation to file a separate civil action must be made so that the civil liability is taken out of the criminal case and the resulting judgment cannot bar the civil suit under the doctrine of res judicata.

Procedural History

The defendant was criminally charged before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, found guilty of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the offended party four thousand pesos as damages. The plaintiff then filed a separate civil action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the civil action was already barred by the final judgment in the criminal case. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the civil case. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in its original decision, affirmed the order of dismissal with costs. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, and it is upon this motion that the Court set aside its original decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Facts

On June 16, 1961, at Marulas, Valenzuela, Bulacan, a car recklessly driven by the defendant hit the plaintiff and her daughter, Norma Tactaquin. The daughter died and the plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the total sum of thirty-seven thousand six hundred thirty-six pesos and thirty-five centavos as damages.

In connection with the same accident, the defendant was charged criminally before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. When the case was called for trial on August 14, 1962, he was allowed to withdraw that plea and immediately entered a plea of guilty, with the provincial fiscal recommending the imposition of the corresponding penalty and civil liability.

At that point, the private prosecutor, Attorney Sundiam, made a statement for the record reserving the right to the civil liability, and the court ordered that the manifestation be recorded. Notwithstanding the reservation, the court subsequently rendered judgment in the criminal case, imposing imprisonment and ordering the payment of four thousand pesos as damages. The defendant then moved to dismiss the separate civil action on the ground of res judicata, and the trial court dismissed it.

Issues

• Whether or not the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action, made by the private prosecutor at the trial of the criminal case before judgment was rendered, was timely and legally effective.
• Whether or not the portion of the criminal judgment concerning civil indemnity was a nullity and therefore could not be accorded the authority of res judicata against the separate civil action.
• Whether or not the offended party, having reserved her right to institute a separate civil action, lost her right to intervene in the criminal case and thus could not be expected to move for reconsideration of, or appeal from, the criminal judgment on the civil indemnity.

Applicable Provisions

The Court states the governing rule on the implied institution of the civil action with the criminal action:

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with it unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately.

This rule is the foundation of the case: it explains why the reservation made by the offended party removed the civil liability from the criminal case and why the criminal judgment on that liability could not bar the separate civil action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the reservation was timely. The rule does not state when or at what stage of the criminal proceeding the reservation should be made, but the Court reasoned that, for the reservation to be timely and legally effective, it must be made before the rendition of judgment, as it was in this case. The private prosecutor timely made the reservation on behalf of the offended party, and it was duly recorded by order of the Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that, as a result of the reservation, the question of civil liability was automatically taken out of the criminal case and was no longer before the court. Upon these premises, the conclusion was inescapable that the portion of the criminal judgment concerning civil indemnity was a nullity, and being so, it could not be accorded the authority of res judicata.

On the third issue, the Court held that once the offended party has reserved the right to institute a separate civil action to recover indemnity, she thereby loses her right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case. For this reason, the plaintiff no longer had any right, nor should she have been expected, to move for reconsideration of, much less to appeal from, the criminal judgment insofar as it decided the question of civil indemnity. She no longer had any standing in the case.

Doctrine

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with it, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately. For the reservation to be timely and legally effective, it must be made before the rendition of judgment in the criminal case. Once a valid reservation is made, the question of civil liability is automatically taken out of the criminal case; any portion of the criminal judgment adjudicating civil indemnity is a nullity and cannot serve as res judicata against the separate civil action. Having reserved the right to a separate civil action, the offended party loses the right to intervene in the criminal prosecution and cannot be expected to move for reconsideration of, or appeal from, the criminal judgment on the civil liability.

Disposition

Ruling on the motion for reconsideration, the Court set aside its original decision and directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, in favor of the plaintiff.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a reservation of the right to file a separate civil action must be made before the rendition of judgment in the criminal case, and once validly made, the civil liability is taken out of the criminal case and any judgment on it is a nullity that cannot bar the civil suit. Examiners use this case to test the timing and effect of the reservation of civil liability, and the rule that the offended party who reserves that right loses standing to intervene in the criminal prosecution.