Manantan vs CA

MANANTAN VS. CA

FACTS: In 1982, accused Manantan, being then the driver and person-in-charge of an automobile, willfully and unlawfully drove and operated the same in a negligent, careless and imprudent manner, without due regard to traffic laws without taking the necessary precaution to prevent accident to person and damage to property, causing said automobile to sideswipe a passenger jeep resulting to the death of Ruben Nicolas a passenger of said automobile. Manantan was acquitted by the trial court of homicide through reckless imprudence without a ruling on his civil liability. On appeal from the civil aspect of the judgment, the appellate court found petitioner Manantan civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify private respondents Marcelino Nicolas and Maria Nicolas P104,400.00 finding accused intoxicated of alcohol at the time of the accident.

ISSUE: W/N the acquittal extinguished the civil liability.

RULING: Decision affirmed.

RATIO: While the trial court found that petitioner's guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it did not state in clear and unequivocal terms that petitioner was not recklessly imprudent or negligent. The trial court acquitted accused on reasonable doubt. Since civil liability is not extinguished in criminal cases, if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeals had to review the findings of the trial court to determine if there was a basis for awarding indemnity and damages.
This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code where the civil action for damages is "for the same act or omission." Although the two actions have different purposes, the matters discussed in the civil case are similar to those discussed in the criminal case. However, the judgment in the criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in the civil action to establish any fact there determined, even though both actions involve the same act or omission. The reason for this rule is that the parties are not the same and secondarily, different rules of evidence are applicable. Hence, notwithstanding herein petitioner's acquittal, the Court of Appeals in determining whether Article 29 applied, was not precluded from looking into the question of petitioner's negligence or reckless imprudence.

*Mia