Dalaruya v. Oliva, G.R. No.
210148, December 8, 2014
FACTS
Daluraya was charged in an Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide in connection with thedeath of Marina
Oliva. The MeTC dismissed case for insufficiency of evidence stating Daluraya was indeed the driver. RTCaffirmed but CA
reversed. SC held that Daluraya's acquittal was based on the fact that "the act or omission from which the civilliability may arise
did not exist" in view of the failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish that he was the author of thecrime ascribed
against him. Consequently, his civil liability should be deemed as non-existent by the nature of such acquittal.
FACTS:.Marina Oliva was crossing the street when a Nissan Vanette, ran her over. She was rushed to the hospital but eventually
died,prompting her daughter, herein respondent Marla Oliva (Marla), to file a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
inHomicide against Antonio Daluraya, the purported driver of the vehicle.Daluraya was charged in an Information for a criminal
case of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide in connection withthe death of Marina Oliva (
no separate civil action)
After presentation of evidence by the prosecution, Daluraya filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss (demurrer) asserting,
inter alia
,that he was not positively identified by any of the prosecution witnesses as the driver of the vehicle that hit the victim, andthat
there was no clear and competent evidence of how the incident transpired.MeTC:
granted Daluraya’s demurrer and
case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. MeTC found that:
Marla merely testified on the damages sustained by her family but she failed to identify Daluraya as the driver of thevehicle
that hit her mother;
Serrano also did not identify Daluraya as the driver of the said vehicle;
Dr. Ortiz merely testified on the autopsy results; and
PSI Gomez, while he did investigate the incident, likewise declared that he did not witness the same.MR denied.RTC: affirmed
MeTCCA: reversed RTC decision. CA held that the MeTC's Order showed that Daluraya's acquittal was based on the fact that
theprosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
. As such, Daluraya was not exonerated from civil liability. MRdenied
ISSUE: WON the CA was correct in finding Daluraya civilly liable for Marina Oliva's death despite his acquittal in the criminalcase
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence? (N)
HELD:
NoIn
Manantan v. CA,
the Court expounded on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects onthe civil liability of
the accused, as follows:Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused.1.
an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of.
Thisinstance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act oromission
cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict,
civil liability
ex delicto
isout of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other thanthe
delict
complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 2.2.
an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused
. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused hasnot been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which
may be proved by preponderance ofevidence only.
Daluraya v Marina OlivaTrialSUMMARY: Daluraya was charged in an Information for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide in connection with thedeath of Marina Oliva. The MeTC dismissed case for insufficiency of
evidence stating Daluraya was indeed the driver. RTCaffirmed but CA reversed. SC held that Daluraya's acquittal was
based on the fact that "the act or omission from which the civilliability may arise did not exist" in view of the failure of
the prosecution to sufficiently establish that he was the author of thecrime ascribed against him. Consequently, his
civil liability should be deemed as non-existent by the nature of such acquittal.DOCTRINE: the civil action based on
delict
may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in thecriminal action that the act or omission
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did notcommit the acts or omission imputed
to him.FACTS:.Marina Oliva was crossing the street when a Nissan Vanette, ran her over. She was rushed to the
hospital but eventually died,prompting her daughter, herein respondent Marla Oliva (Marla), to file a criminal case
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting inHomicide against Antonio Daluraya, the purported driver of the
vehicle.Daluraya was charged in an Information for a criminal case of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide in
connection withthe death of Marina Oliva (
no separate civil action)
After presentation of evidence by the prosecution, Daluraya filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss (demurrer) asserting,
inter alia
,that he was not positively identified by any of the prosecution witnesses as the driver of the vehicle that hit the
victim, andthat there was no clear and competent evidence of how the incident transpired.MeTC:
granted Daluraya’s demurrer and
case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. MeTC found that:
Marla merely testified on the damages sustained by her family but she failed to identify Daluraya as the driver
of thevehicle that hit her mother;
Serrano also did not identify Daluraya as the driver of the said vehicle;
Dr. Ortiz merely testified on the autopsy results; and
PSI Gomez, while he did investigate the incident, likewise declared that he did not witness the same.MR denied.RTC:
affirmed MeTCCA: reversed RTC decision. CA held that the MeTC's Order showed that Daluraya's acquittal was
based on the fact that theprosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
. As such, Daluraya was not exonerated from civil liability. MRdeniedISSUE: WON the CA was correct in finding
Daluraya civilly liable for Marina Oliva's death despite his acquittal in the criminalcase for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence? (N)HELD: NoIn
Manantan v. CA,
the Court expounded on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects onthe civil
liability of the accused, as follows:Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability
of the accused.1.
an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of.
Thisinstance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act
oromission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict,
civil liability
ex delicto
isout of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other thanthe
delict
complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 2.2.
an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused
. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused hasnot been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability
which may be proved by preponderance ofevidence only.
In Dayap v Sendiong
the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in
the criminalaction that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused
did not committhe acts or omission imputed to him.Thus, if demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the
court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence onthe civil aspect of the case
unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability mayarise did not
exist.
A punctilious examination of the MeTC's Order, which the RTC sustained, will show that Daluraya's acquittal
wasbased on the conclusion that
the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist,
given that theprosecution was not able to establish that he was the author of the crime imputed against him.Such
conclusion is clear and categorical when the MeTC declared that "the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
arewanting in material details and they did not sufficiently establish that the accused precisely committed the crime
chargedagainst him."
Furthermore, when Marla sought reconsideration of the MeTC's Order acquitting Daluraya, said court reiterated and
firmlyclarified that "the prosecution was not able to establish that the accused was the driver of the Nissan Vanette
which bumpedMarina Oliva" and that "there is no competent evidence on hand which proves that the accused was the
person responsible forthe death of Marina Oliva."Records disclose that Daluraya's acquittal was based on the fact that
"the act or omission from which the civil liability mayarise did not exist" in view of the failure of the prosecution to
sufficiently establish that he was the author of the crimeascribed against him. Consequently,his civil liability should
be deemed as non-existent by the nature of such acquittal.Dispositive: Petition Granted. CA reversed
