G.R. No. 214326 - Kane vs. Roggenkamp

Alastair John Kane (petitioner) and Patricia Roggenkamp (respondent) are Australian citizens who became lovers in Brisbane in January 2004 and later settled in Manila in Patricia’s condominium units.
Patricia established a Philippine business and the couple cohabited in Parañaque City and Pasig City condominiums.

On December 1, 2004, after a birthday party, Patricia alleged that Kane physically assaulted her—lifting her by the hair, dropping her on the floor, punching her head, and forcing her face against a pillow—while Kane maintained the injuries resulted from accidentally dropping her due to a wheeled bed.
Patricia sought medical treatment; her son observed her pain and took her to hospital. She reported the incident to police on February 4, 2005, disclosing prior abuse.
An information for violation of R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act) was filed in Parañaque RTC Branch 260 (Criminal Case No. 06-0413).

After trial, RTC Branch 260 acquitted Kane on grounds of reasonable doubt, stating his version was “in accord with human experience” and did not declare that the facts or act did not exist.
The court noted Patricia’s delayed complaint, continued relationship events (Christmas vacation), and absence of consistent reporting to her son or doctor.

Patricia filed a civil Complaint for Damages under Article 33, Civil Code, in Mandaluyong RTC Branch 214 for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, asserting an independent right separate from the criminal case.
Kane moved to dismiss for res judicata (arguing identical cause) and improper venue; the trial court initially denied the motion, holding civil liability survived acquittal for reasonable doubt and venue properly laid in Patricia’s residence.
Upon a change of presiding judge, the trial court later dismissed the civil case motu proprio for res judicata—concluding the criminal judgment implied non-existence of the act—and lack of jurisdiction, characterizing Patricia’s actions as forum shopping.
The Court of Appeals reversed in CA-G.R. CV No. 96341, ruling that (a) Article 33 actions are independent and not barred by criminal acquittal; (b) causes of action differ, so no res judicata; (c) no forum shopping; and (d) venue in Mandaluyong was proper.
Kane’s motions for reconsideration were denied; he filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether an acquittal based on reasonable doubt bars a civil action for damages under Article 33, Civil Code.
Whether the civil Complaint for Damages is barred by res judicata given the prior criminal acquittal.
Whether Patricia’s filing of the civil action constituted forum shopping.
Whether venue in Mandaluyong City was properly laid for the personal action.