Moreover, in Daluraya v. Oliva citing Dayap v. Sendiong:
“The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him in the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only a preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
“However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.”
The present case falls under the first kind of acquittal, i.e., the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. In its decision, the RTC clearly and categorically found that “Dr. Daz could not be blamed on the mere fact that the hot water bag gave way or may have been ruptured.” Worse, the prosecution miserably failed to offer any evidence that a hot water bag broke:
The [c]ourt has painstaking (sic) looked into the many hospital records formally offered by the prosecution but failed to see any mention of a “hot water bag” that has burst, leaked or broke. The counter-affidavit of Tarhata Chan and the other assisting nurses pointing to Dr. Daz as the one who placed a hot water bag on the thigh of John Ray “which may have ruptured” could not be taken into consideration as said affiants were not presented as prosecution witnesses. Their counter-affidavit is hearsay and its contents are inadmissible.
While Dr. Daz was found not to be the author of the act or omission, the RTC still found him to be civilly liable. The RTC reasoned:
“The yardstick applied by the Court in the foregoing disquisition is proof beyond reasonable doubt as applied in all criminal prosecutions for purposes of determining criminal liability. Civil liability is a different matter. The gauge is a preponderance of evidence. And it need not arise ex delicto. The court has ruled that Dr. Daz could not be blamed criminally for the death of John Ray-again (sic), primarily because the causal connection between the scald burns and the death of the child has not been established. But using a preponderance of evidence as its gauge, the Court is comfortable to say that Dr. Daz was civilly negligent when John Ray suffered scald burns while being resuscitated from hypothermia- (sic) a function belonging to Dr. Daz as an anesthesiologist.”
The reasoning provided by the RTC lacked factual and legal bases.
Even assuming that Dr. Daz’s acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the imputed negligence still fails under the lens of a preponderance of evidence. As earlier mentioned, there was no evidence pointing to Dr. Daz as the culprit in the bursting of the hot water bag.
It cannot be overemphasized that Dr. Daz cannot be assumed to be responsible for the bursting of the water bag. Precisely, that it gave way cannot be attributed to his fault.
It is well to note also that there were several persons, including student nurses, inside the operating room during the 27 June 2006 operation: As to who prepared the hot water bag was never clearly determined.
“It cannot be overemphasized that Dr. Daz cannot be assumed to be responsible for the bursting of the water bag. Precisely, that it gave way cannot be attributed to his fault. It goes deep into a discussion on the instrument itself or its dilapidated state. How can a doctor be responsible for the usability of an instrument that can be safely assumed to be that of the hospital’s? The Court would have appreciated the circumstances differently had the instrument/s used been his or her own, such that it relates to his or her specialization. It would be unreasonable to assume that a water bag would be a personal instrument of a doctor such that he or she would be responsible for its condition.”
Clear as day? No civil liability at all when it was found that accused is not the perpetrator. There can be civil liability despite acquittal if there is reasonable doubt.
The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Spouses Christopher and Carmen Nunez v. Dr. Henry Daz (G.R. No. 248489, 29 January 2024).