Dear PAO,
I plan to file a theft case. However, I also want to file a separate civil case to recover the money stolen from me and to claim damages. Can I do that?
Randolf
Dear Randolf,
In a prosecution for theft, the civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the offense — otherwise known as civil liability ex delicto — is deemed automatically instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action, (2) expressly reserves the right to institute it separately, or (3) files the civil action prior to the institution of the criminal case.
Any reservation of the civil action must be made before the prosecution begins the presentation of its evidence in the criminal case. This rule is expressly provided under Rule 111, Section 1(a) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which states:
“Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) 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. The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. xxx”
Correlatively, in Torreon vs. Aparra (GR 188493, Dec. 13, 2017), the Supreme Court, speaking through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, clarified the consequences of failing to reserve the civil action. Absent such reservation, the civil action for damages arising from the offense is generally deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case, thereby precluding the subsequent filing of a separate civil action for the same damages. This ruling is consistent with the high court’s application of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and the principles against splitting causes of action and double recovery. As explained in the Torreon case:
“When Abellana did not reserve her right to institute a separate civil action, her cause of action for damages was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case. Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Court prohibits offended parties from recovering damages twice for the act being prosecuted in the criminal action. Thus, Abellana is now barred from instituting this case.”
In sum, the reservation of the civil action is a mandatory procedural requirement that must be timely and expressly made; otherwise, the civil liability arising from the offense is deemed automatically and impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Failure to make such reservation bars the offended party from subsequently filing a separate civil action for the same damages, in accordance with Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court and the established jurisprudence prohibiting the splitting of causes of action and double recovery.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
