Case Summary (G.R. No. 214326)
Key Dates
- January 2004: Relationship began in Brisbane.
- December 1, 2004: Alleged physical violence.
- March 30, 2006: Information filed under RA 9262, Criminal Case No. 06-0413 (RTC Pasig City, Branch 260).
- May 22, 2007 & May 13, 2008: Respondent’s testimony in criminal trial.
- November 29, 2008: Civil Complaint for Damages (Art. 33, Civil Code) filed in RTC Mandaluyong City, Branch 214.
- April 20, 2009: Motion to Dismiss denied by RTC 214.
- June 8, 2010 & November 19, 2010: RTC 214 Motu Proprio dismissal orders.
- March 25, 2014 & September 3, 2014: CA Decision and Resolution reversing RTC 214.
- July 6, 2020: SCG.R. No. 214326 decision affirming CA.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution
- RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)
- Civil Code Art. 33 (independent civil action for defamation, fraud, physical injuries)
- Civil Code Arts. 32, 34, 2176 (other independent civil liabilities)
- Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc. Rule 120 §2 (contents of criminal judgment)
- Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc. Rule 111 §3 (independent civil action may proceed)
- RPC Art. 100 (civil liability ex delicto)
- Rules of Court Arts. 2 (cause of action), 4 (venue)
Facts and Criminal Proceedings
Respondent accused petitioner of physical violence on December 1, 2004. After investigation and trial, RTC Pasig City (Branch 260) acquitted Kane “due to reasonable doubt” without declaring that the act did not exist, as required by Rule 120 §2.
Civil Complaint and Dismissal in Mandaluyong
Respondent filed an independent civil action for damages under Civil Code Art. 33 in RTC Mandaluyong City. Kane moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata and improper venue. RTC 214 initially denied the motion but later, motu proprio, dismissed the case (June 8, 2010; Nov. 19, 2010), ruling the criminal acquittal barred civil liability and that Mandaluyong lacked jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals Decision
CA 6th Division (March 25, 2014) reversed and set aside RTC 214’s dismissal orders. It held:
- Civil Code Art. 33 creates an action “entirely separate and distinct” from criminal prosecution, requiring only preponderance of evidence.
- An acquittal for reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability ex delicto (Manantan v. CA).
- Res judicata does not apply because causes of action differ (RA 9262 violation vs. Art. 33 civil damage claim).
- No forum shopping as independent civil action is expressly allowed.
- Venue proper in Mandaluyong, where respondent resided at filing.
Motion for reconsideration denied (Sept. 3, 2014).
Issue 1: Civil Liability After Acquittal
Civil Code Art. 33 grants an independent civil action for bodily injuries. Rule 120 §2 mandates that acquittal judgments state if the wrongful act did not exist; absence of such finding presumes acquittal due to reasonable doubt. Under Manantan, reasonable-doubt acquittal leaves civil liability intact. Here, RTC Pasig City acquitted for reasonable doubt without declaring non-existence of the act, so petitioner remains civilly liable.
Issue 2: Res Judicata
Res judicata requires identity of parties, cause of action, and relief. The RA 9262 criminal case and the Art. 33 civil action address different rights and legal bases. Jurisprudence (Cancio v. Isip; Lim v. Kou) confirms independent civil liabilities may proceed despite criminal outcomes. Therefore, the criminal acquittal does not bar the separate civil claim.
Issue 3: Forum Shopping
Forum shopping involves multiple suits on the same cause of action. Here, the civil claim under Art. 33 and the criminal RA 9262 case are separate causes of action, see
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 214326)
Facts of the Case
- Alastair John Kane (“petitioner”) and Patricia Roggenkamp (“respondent”) are Australian citizens who met in January 2004 in Brisbane and moved to Manila, settling in a condominium in Parañaque purportedly owned by respondent.
- On December 1, 2004, after a party, respondent accused petitioner of looking at other women’s underwear; petitioner allegedly lifted her by the hair, dropped her on the floor, punched her head, dragged her to the bed, and pressed her face into a pillow.
- Respondent locked herself in the bathroom and, the following day, was found in pain by her son, Ashley Richard Cayzer, who took her to San Juan de Dios Hospital; she received 12 days of painkillers and then returned to live with petitioner.
- A brief respite followed (vacation from December 26, 2004 to January 1, 2005), but on January 6–7, 2005, petitioner verbally abused respondent and took her car and keys; respondent recovered her car from a Pasig condominium.
- Respondent finally reported the incidents on February 4, 2005; police found probable cause for violation of R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
Procedural History
- February 2006: Information for violation of R.A. 9262 filed in RTC Parañaque, Branch 260 (Criminal Case No. 06-0413), with respondent as private complainant.
- After trial, RTC Parañaque acquitted petitioner on ground of reasonable doubt, without declaring non-existence of the act or omission underlying civil liability.
- November 29, 2008: Respondent filed civil Complaint for Damages under Article 33, Civil Code, in RTC Mandaluyong, Branch 214, for actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- April 20, 2009: Mandaluyong RTC denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (res judicata, improper venue), holding independent civil action under Article 33 proceeds despite acquittal on reasonable doubt.
- June 8, 2010: Acting Presiding Judge Calo dismissed the civil case motu proprio for res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, deeming the criminal acquittal a declaration non-existent act.
- November 19, 2010: Motion for Reconsideration denied.
- March 25, 2014: Court of Appeals reversed Mandaluyong RTC, reinstated civil case, ruling Article 33 action independent, no res judicata or forum shopping, venue proper.
- September 3, 2014: CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- October 9, 2014: Petitioner filed