RULE 111- PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
        Basis for the institution shall be based on delict or crime.
        Unless waived, reserved, or a civil action was filed before crim action.
        Actual charges – may be charged regardless without claims
        Counterclaim – not allowed in criminal cases. It is allowed only in civil cases.
        In BP22, civil action is included.
             Cruz v. Mina, GR No. 154207, April 27, 2007
             Can the son of the accused for grave threat appear as agent of the court on behalf of the
             father? Can the priv complainant be substituted? Yes.
             Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 160451, February 9, 2007
             ok.
             Heirs of Sarah Burgos v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 169711, February 8, 2010
             Grant of bail has nothing to do with civil action for liability
             Priv offended has no personality to question bail.
             ABS- CBN v. Ombudsman, GR No.133347 October 15, 2008
             Whether death extinguishes criminal liability
             Hun Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi, GR No. 165496, February 12, 2007
             Demurrer filed after dismissal
             Without act or omission, extinguished
             Acquittal –
             Granting of demurrer results to dismissal of both crim and civil aspect – if grant is acts or
             omissions does not exist
             Lo Bun Tiong vs. Balboa, GR No. 158177, January 28, 2008
             Actual damages – what’s in the case
             (Before, bp22 allowed civil aspect to be filed separately)
     Sec. 2.When separate civil action is suspended.
     Crim, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil, preponderance of evidence
     May Ext civ liability if found out that there was no criminal offense committed
             Lanuzo v. Sy Bon Ping, G.R. No. 53064, September 25, 1980
             Arising from quasi delict
             Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007
             Act or omission does not exist because he isn’t the author
             Aleria v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949
             Civil case on unpaid wages
             Parker v. Panlilio, G.R. No. L-4961 March 5, 1952
             Diff defendants on the criminal and civil case
             Babala v. Abaño, G.R. No. L-4600 February 28, 1952
             Issuance of prelim injunction may be done, as long as no going to the merits of the case
             Jose-Consing v. People, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013
             Unicapital, filed against consing estafa
             Is prejudicial question applicable? Plus builders, none. Unicapital, there is.
             Civil action with fraud may go hand in hand with a criminal action
             Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013
             Anti graft, but suspended bed violation of speedy trial
             Acquittal does not ext civil liability. Court did not acquit bec no criminal action was present
             Co v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013
             Dj attaches.
             Acquittal, no dj:
             1. Acquittal based on reasonabke doubt
             2. civ is separate
                                                1
Sec. 3.When civil action may proceed independently.
        Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, GR No. 147703, April 14, 2004
        Civ action on quasi delict
Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions.
Civil liability from delict
BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT
        ABS-CBN v. Ombudsman, GR No.133347 October 15, 2008
        Discussed
        Namatay so benedicto even before criminal action instituted
        May go against ben for civil liability
        Civil case may proceed
        Civil liability may be ran after based on other sources of obligation
        People vs. Bayotas, GR No. 102007, September 2, 1994
        Is death of accused pending appeal extinguish civil liability? It depends on the civil liability
        refered. If pertains to crime, extinguished. If based on other sources, liability shrives by
        filing a separate civil action
        People vs. Bringas Bunay y Dam-at, GR No. 171268, September 14, 2010
        Ok
        People vs. Jaime Ayochok, GR No.175784, August 25, 2010
        Obligation to indemnify victim- bases on ex delicto
Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar.
        Salta v. De Veyra, G.R. L-37733, September 30, 2982
        Reservation results that the court trying the criminal case can’t rule on the civil liability
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.
PQ is made to avoid conflicting decisions.
        San Miguel Properties v. Secretary of Justice GR No. 166836, September 4, 2013
        BF did not release titles. Accdg to San min, sec 5 on specific performance
        If hlurb says no obligation, can’t be a crim offense
        Problem – blurb. BUT civil action matters, not the agency because you can come up with a
        cause of action
        Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.148004 January 22, 2007
        Criminal case and SEC case (declaration of nullity of position)
        Authority to demand is an element of estafa
        People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162748-50, 28 March 2006
        Sufficiency of allegation in the information
        Absence authority, no more valid demand
        If one court says validity if moa, no graft (criminal case)
        Yu v. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, 485 SCRA 56
        Do you apply prejudicial question here? No. PQ may be used as a term, but not as such
        stated in Rule 111.
        Reyes v. Pearlbank Security,G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 2008
        There were prior cases on accounting, civil in nature.
        Civil – asserting a right or status.
        No PQ because issue on SEC is not determinative of the falsification case.
        Coca-Cola. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 159323, July 31, 2008
        No prejudicial question because there is no criminal case.
        Monreal v. COMELEC, GR No. 184935, December 21, 2009
        No pq. Because dismissing would result to…
        Sps Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008
        Walay check bec unconscionable.
        But SC: no. Gravamen is issuance. Validity or invalidity of interest does not matter.
                                              2
                       Sy Thiong Siou v. Sy Chim, GR No. 174168, March 30, 2009
                       No PQ. WON one of the spouses mishandled the fund, it has nothing to do with the other
                       criminal case.
                       IBP vs. Atienza, GR No. 175241, February 24, 2010
                       You have to file the motion for suspension in the criminal case, not in the civil case.
                       Land Bank of the Philippines v. Jacinto, GR No. 154622 August 3, 2010
                       ok
                       Sabandal vs. Tongco, GR No. 124498, October 5, 2001
                       ok
                       Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,G.R. No. 138509, 31 July 2000
                       No pq bec judicial dec of nullity is not determinative of the innocence of the guilt of the
                       husband. (bigamy)
                       Landicho v. Relova, GR No. L- 22579, February 23, 1968
                       Bigamy case.
                       Beltran vs. People, GR No. 137567, June 20, 2000
                       Said that there should be no concubinage. But…
                       Prado vs People, G.R. No. L-37652 December 26, 1984
                       ok
                       Donato vs Luna, G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988
                       Elpidio doctrine if the consent of a party is in question. (if no consent, no marriage to speak
                       of.)
               Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.
               1. Pending civil action previously instituted
               2. Criminal action and civil action intimately related
                       Magestrado v. People, GR No. 148072, July 10, 2009
                       ok
                       Torres v. Garchitorena, GR No. 153666 December 27, 2002
                       ok
                       Pimentel v. Pimentel, GR No. 172060, September 13, 2010
                       ok
OCA CIRCULAR 1010 2017
32B8 – prohibited motion to suspend from action based on prejudicial question. There should be a PEDNING civil
case based on prejudicial question