Philippine Rabbit
vs. People
G.R. No.
147703 April 14, 2004
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Facts:
Napoleon Roman was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage
to property and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. The
court further ruled that in the event of the insolvency of accused, petitioner
shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently, the
judgment against accused had become final and executory.
Admittedly,
accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. The CA ruled that the
institution of a criminal case implied the institution also of the civil action
arising from the offense. Thus, once determined in the criminal case against
the accused-employee, the employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.
Issue:
Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its
accused-employee, may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the
accused.
Held: No. It is well-established in our jurisdiction that the appellate court may, upon motion or motu proprio,
dismiss an appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps bail. This rule is
based on the rationale that appellants lose their standing in court when they
abscond.
2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal prosecution. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.
Only the civil
liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly
instituted in a criminal action; that is, unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it
prior to the criminal action. Hence, the subsidiary civil liability of the
employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by
execution on the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to the employee.
What is deemed
instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from
the crime or delict per se, but not those liabilities arising from
quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is
filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal
prosecution remains, and the offended party may -- subject to the control of
the prosecutor -- still intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect
the remaining civil interest therein.
The cases
dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that,
strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted
against their employees. Although in substance and in effect, they have an
interest therein, this fact should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary
liability. While they may assist their employees to the extent of supplying the
latter’s lawyers, as in the present case, the former cannot act independently
on their own behalf, but can only defend the accused.
As a matter of
law, the subsidiary liability of petitioner now accrues. Under Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated
civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter’s insolvency. Thus,
in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly
pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. In the absence of any
collusion between the accused-employee and the offended party, the judgment of
conviction should bind the person who is subsidiarily liable. In effect and
implication, the stigma of a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil
liability.
To allow
employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable
them to amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent
court. By the same token, to allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction
of their employees without the latter’s consent would also result in improperly
amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision convicting an
employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer not
only with regard to the former’s civil liability, but also with regard to its
amount. The liability of an employer cannot be separated from that of the employee.
The subsidiary
liability of petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil
liability of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has
become final and enforceable by reason of his flight, then the former’s
subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable. Respondent
is correct in arguing that the concept of subsidiary liability is highly
contingent on the imposition of the primary civil liability.
No comments:
Post a Comment