GEORGE MANANTAN, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, defendant
G.R. No. 107125. January 29, 2001
FACTS:
In the evening of September 25, 1982, at the National Highway of Malvar, Santiago, Isabela, George Manantan was driving a Toyota car going home. At that time, he was with Fiscal Ambrocio, Miguel Tabangin and Ruben Nicolas. Suddenly, a jeepney, coming from the opposite direction hit the driver side of the car, driven by Manantan. Consequently, Manantan, Ambrocio and Tabangin were injured while Nicolas died. Trial followed.
The lower court acquitted the accused of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The respondents filed their notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the lower court’s judgment. Even if the accused was acquitted from his criminal liability, the Appellate Court held him civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify the aggrieved party for the death of Nicolas.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acquittal of petitioner extinguished his civil liability.
RULING:
The acquittal was based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. Article 29 of the Civil Code provides that a civil liability is not extinguished in criminal cases. Therefore, the accused cannot be exempted from paying civil damages which may only be proven by preponderance of evidence.
Manantan claimed that he was placed on double jeopardy but the courts did not give merit to this contention. The following elements must be present for double jeopardy to exist: (1) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) The first jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the third jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.
In the case at bar, the initially put into jeopardy but he it was terminated by his discharge. When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the issue was about the civil aspect of the criminal case. Thus, there could be no double jeopardy.
