This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The dismissal of the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt--where in Criminal Case No. 98-969952 there was no pronouncement as regards the civil liability of the accused and in Criminal Case No. 98-969953 where the trial court declared that the liability of the accused was only civil in nature--produced the legal effect of a reservation by the petitioner of her right to litigate separately the civil action impliedly instituted with the estafa cases, following Article 29 of the Civil Code.[17] | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony [e.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31[10] of the Civil Code,[11] intentional torts under Articles 32[12] and 34,[13] and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176[14] of the Civil Code]; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action [Article 33,[15] Civil Code].[16] Either of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject, however, to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party "cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission" or under both causes.[17] The modes of enforcement of the foregoing civil liabilities are provided for in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Though the assailed order of the trial court was issued on March 20, 1998, the said Rules, which took effect on December 1, 2000, must be given retroactive | |||||