ROMAN GARCES, PETITIONER, VS. SIMPLICIO HERNANDEZ, JR., CANDIDO HERNANDEZ, ROSITA HERNANDEZ, AND JEFFREY MANGUBAT, RESPONDENTS.

Garces versus Hernandez

The Case

This is the case of Roman Garces versus Simplicio Hernandez, Junior, Candido Hernandez, Rosita Hernandez, and Jeffrey Mangubat. Roman Garces is the father of Rustico Garces, the victim of a killing. The Hernandez respondents were charged with murder but were acquitted by the trial court on the ground that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner then sought to hold them civilly liable in the very same criminal case. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate two enduring lessons: first, that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and cannot be disturbed without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy; and second, that the civil liability arising from an offense survives an acquittal only when the acquittal rests on reasonable doubt, not when the court finds that the act or omission itself did not exist.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4, rendered a decision acquitting the respondents of murder. After judgment was promulgated, a counsel entered his appearance for the victim's father and filed a motion for reconsideration directed at the civil liability of the respondents. The trial court dismissed the motion, ruling that the counsel had no legal personality to file it and that the claim for civil damages should be prosecuted in a separate civil action, not in the same criminal case. A supplemental motion for reconsideration was dismissed as moot and academic.

The petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the remedy of certiorari was unavailable because an appeal was open to the petitioner and he unjustifiably failed to resort to it. It also held that, even on the merits, the petition would not lie. The petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Rustico Garces was killed. The respondents were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. The prosecution presented physical evidence, including a gun, empty bullet shells recovered near the body, the slug recovered from the body, and traces of blood and strands of hair recovered at the house of the respondents. The prosecution also presented testimonial evidence from two witnesses who claimed to have seen the respondents carrying the dead body of Rustico along the barangay road in broad daylight.

The trial court found that the physical evidence failed to point to the respondents as the perpetrators. The gun was never established to belong to any of them, and the ballistics examination did not confirm that the slug came from that gun. The traces of blood and strands of hair were never established to have come from Rustico. The trial court gave no credence to the two witnesses, observing that if the event had truly happened in public, many other witnesses could have testified, and that it was unbelievable the respondents would parade the evidence of their crime in broad daylight.

The trial court also noted that none of the respondents went into hiding; three of them voluntarily went with the police investigators on the night of the killing. It concluded that there was no moral certainty sufficient to convict, and acquitted the respondents. The decision, however, was silent on the civil aspect of the case.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy for the petitioner to assail the trial court's failure to rule on the civil liability of the respondents.
• Whether or not the respondents, though acquitted of murder, are civilly liable to the heirs of the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioner admitted that he neither waived the civil action, nor reserved the right to institute it separately, nor instituted it prior to the criminal action; hence the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal action, and the remedy against the judgment silent on the civil aspect was an appeal.

Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Contents of the judgment. - If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

This provision bears on the case because it directs the trial court, upon acquittal, to determine whether the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist, and that determination controls whether the civil liability survives.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy. The petitioner himself admitted that he did not waive the civil action, did not reserve the right to institute it separately, and did not institute it prior to the criminal action. His remedy, as the appellate court correctly held, was to appeal within the reglementary period the trial court's decision, which was silent on the civil aspect of the case. Certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that, technicality aside, the petition fails on the merits. The Court quoted the trial court's finding that there was clearly no moral certainty that could be arrived at in convicting the accused, and that the physical and testimonial evidence failed to elicit the conclusion that the accused should be held criminally liable. From these portions, the Court found that the acts or omissions from which the civil liability of the respondents might arise did not exist. The acquittal therefore did not rest merely on reasonable doubt; it rested on the finding that the act itself did not exist, and no civil liability could arise.

Doctrine

First, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the prosecution cannot appeal it because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Second, the offended party may still pursue the civil aspect of the case despite an acquittal, but the proper remedy is an appeal of the judgment insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, not a petition for certiorari. Third, under Section 2 of Rule 120, upon acquittal the trial court must state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to prove guilt or merely failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in either case must determine whether the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist. Fourth, the civil liability survives an acquittal based on reasonable doubt, but it does not survive where the court finds that the act or omission itself did not exist. Fifth, under Section 1 of Rule 111, the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives it, reserves it, or institutes it separately before the criminal action.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the respondents, having been acquitted on a finding that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist, were held not civilly liable.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an acquittal based on reasonable doubt leaves civil liability standing, but an acquittal grounded on the finding that the act or omission did not exist extinguishes it. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of double jeopardy, the civil aspect of criminal cases, and the contents of a judgment of acquittal under Rule 120.