THE CIVIL CODE
RA. No. 386
Preliminary Title
Chapter 1
Effect and Application of Laws
Article
30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising
from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency
of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to
prove the act complained of.
An offended party can
initiate a court action to enforce the civil liability arising from the crime
of an offender. This action is deemed civil in nature. Thus, the offended party
or the plaintiff is required to prove his case by mere preponderance of
evidence as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal
cases. However, if the plaintiff initiates a criminal action, the civil action
is deemed suspended until the criminal action is adjudicated with finality. The
pending civil action may also be consolidated with the criminal action upon
proper application with the court. If the application is granted, the evidence
produced in the civil action is deemed reproduced in the criminal action
without prejudice to rights of the opposing parties to present more evidence in
their favor. Consolidated civil and criminal actions are tried and decided
jointly. (Rule 111, Section 2(a) of the Revised Rules of Court.)
In the case law, FEBTC vs. Chante (G.R.
No. 170598 October 9, 2013), a succinct definition of preponderant evidence is
provided. Following the words of Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, the
Supreme Court states that “preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of
greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to
it. It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the
contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
According to the Supreme Court, “in
the hierarchy of evidentiary values…, proof beyond reasonable doubt [is] at the
highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of
evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.” (Spouses Vicente And Gloria
Manalo vs Roldan-Confesor et al, G.R. No. 102358 November 19, 1992)
Case
Digest
Torrijos
vs. CA
G.R.
No. L-40336. October 24, 1975
Facts:
Wakat
Diamnuan and his wife sold their 1/4 share of a parcel of land in favor of
Torrijos. Five years later, the entire property, including the share of Wakat
and his wife, were sold to Victor de Guia. Hence, Torrijos filed a case of
estafa against Wakat who was subsequently convicted by the trial court. While
the conviction was on appeal, Wakat died.
Issue:
Should the appeal regarding the civil liability of Wakat
be allowed to proceed?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be
allowed to proceed with respect to the civil liability of Wakat. Death
extinguishes both criminal and civil liability only when the civil liability could
only arise from a criminal conviction. Civil liability survives the death of an
accused when it can be predicated on other sources of obligations other than
acts or omissions punished by law. In this particular case, there was a
predicate source of obligation, the contract of purchase and sale between Wakat
and Torrijos. Thus, it was held that Torrijos could still enforce Wakat’s civil
liability against Wakat’s heirs. Seeking the enforcement of this civil
liability independent of criminal prosecution is what Article 30 of the Civil
Code provides.
It should be noted, however, that in
the case of Torrijos, the Supreme
Court did not cite Article 30. Article 30 was mentioned in People vs Bayotas
(G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994) vis a
vis the case of Torrijos and Sendaydiego to drive this point: “What
Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which may be
brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently
of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the quantum of evidence
needed to prove the criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with
civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidence and not proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.”Reference:
Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila
-------------------------
by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020
Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019
No comments:
Post a Comment