Article 100 of our Revised Penal Code provides that “[e]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.” Thus, you see decisions where, aside from the penalty of imprisonment, courts hold the accused liable for damages, actual, moral or even exemplary. You see, a criminal action has two components, criminal and civil. Incarceration answers the criminal aspect, while damages pertain to the civil aspect of the crime. Next question, if the accused is on the other hand acquitted, will he automatically be absolved of any civil liability as well? Actually, both yes and no are correct answers, depending on the circumstances of the case.

To illustrate this further and for you to appreciate why it can be a yes and no, I would like to discuss this case of a doctor held liable for the death of the child of the complainants. The latter alleged that while their son was undergoing an operation, the respondent doctor put a bag filled with hot water on the thighs of their child to prevent further hypothermia.

Unfortunately, the bag burst and spilled on the child’s legs causing scalding. A subsequent operation was necessitated wherein the child this time, succumbed to death. After the trial, the court acquitted the doctor of the charges. It however held him still civilly liable still for damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the acquittal but reversed the award of damages. This prompted the parents of the child to seek recourse from the Supreme Court. To this issue, the Highest Court decreed, “Dr. Daz was not found to be the author of the act or omission complained of.”

The Court has consistently held that there are two kinds of acquittal: (1) that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of; and (2) that the prosecutor failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Although they have the same effect on the acquittal of the accused, their effects differ as to the accused’ civil liability. The Court held in Manantan v. Court of Appeals:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission.

There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

(To be continued)