Title
Bonite vs. Zosa
Case
G.R. No. L-33772
Decision Date
Jun 20, 1988
A road worker's heirs sued for damages after his death in a truck accident. Despite the driver's acquittal in criminal court, the Supreme Court allowed a separate civil case under Article 29, ruling it independent of criminal proceedings.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33772)

Facts:

  1. Incident Leading to the Case:

    • On 24 September 1968, Florencio Bonite, a "caminero" (road worker) of the Bureau of Public Highways, was hit by a truck driven by private respondent Eligio Abamonga in Barrio Vicente Alto, Oroquieta City. Florencio Bonite died on the same day.
  2. Criminal Case:

    • The surviving heirs of Florencio Bonite (petitioners) filed a criminal complaint for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence against Abamonga, docketed as Criminal Case No. 9328.
    • Petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Alberto Dulalas, actively participated in the prosecution of the criminal case.
    • The court acquitted Abamonga due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Civil Case:

    • On 28 December 1970, petitioners filed a civil action for damages against Abamonga in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, docketed as Civil Case No. 2806.
    • The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that since petitioners did not reserve the right to file an independent civil action and actively participated in the criminal case, the civil action was barred by res judicata.
    • Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file this petition for review.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Article 29 of the Civil Code:

    • Allows a civil action for damages to be filed even if the accused is acquitted in the criminal case, provided the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
    • No reservation to file a separate civil action is required under Article 29.
  2. Quasi-Delict under Article 2176:

    • A civil action for damages based on quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) is independent of the criminal action.
    • Acquittal in the criminal case, whether based on reasonable doubt or not, does not bar a civil action under quasi-delict.
  3. Inapplicability of Article 33:

    • Article 33 of the Civil Code, which allows independent civil actions for defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, does not apply to cases of reckless imprudence or criminal negligence.
  4. No Reservation Requirement:

    • The requirement to reserve the right to file an independent civil action under Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is not applicable to actions under Article 29.
    • The reservation requirement was deemed an unauthorized amendment to the Civil Code and has since been deleted from the Rules.
  5. Active Participation in Criminal Case:

    • Active participation in the criminal case does not bar the filing of an independent civil action under Article 29.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that they are entitled to pursue an independent civil action for damages under Article 29 of the Civil Code, despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case and their active participation in the prosecution. The case was remanded to the lower court for trial.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.