Title
Matan vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 107125
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2001
Manantan acquitted of reckless imprudence but held civilly liable for vehicular accident resulting in death; damages upheld despite acquittal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 107125)

Facts of the Accident

Petitioner drove his Toyota Starlet after consuming a total of at least twelve bottles of beer between morning and night. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on September 25, 1982, while traveling at speeds estimated between 40 kph (petitioner’s account) and 80–90 kph (jeepney driver’s account) on the Maharlika Highway at Barangay Malvar, Santiago, Isabela, his vehicle collided head-on with an oncoming passenger jeepney. The impact caused petitioner’s car to overturn twice, fatally injuring passenger Ruben Nicolas and injuring others.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court acquitted Manantan of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, finding that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court entertained a hypothesis that the collision could have occurred notwithstanding petitioner’s conduct and declined to resolve residual doubt against him. No civil liability was adjudicated at that stage.

Court of Appeals Ruling on Civil Aspect

On appeal limited to civil liability, the Court of Appeals:

  • Held that petitioner’s intoxicated driving violated Section 53 of R.A. No. 4136.
  • Applied the statutory presumption of negligence under Civil Code Article 2185.
  • Ordered indemnity and damages totaling ₱174,400.00 (loss of support ₱104,400; death indemnity ₱50,000; moral damages ₱20,000).

Issues Presented

  1. Whether acquittal on the criminal aspect barred further inquiry into negligence or constituted double jeopardy.
  2. Whether civil liability was extinguished by petitioner’s acquittal.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to award damages for failure to pay filing fees under the Manchester doctrine.

Analysis – Double Jeopardy and Scope of Review

  • Double jeopardy protects against a second criminal prosecution for the same offense, not against civil enforcement of damages arising from the same act.
  • The appellate proceeding addressed only civil liability impliedly instituted with the criminal action (Rule 111, Sec. 1) and did not reopen or amend the criminal acquittal.
  • No second criminal prosecution occurred; therefore, no double jeopardy violation.

Analysis – Civil Liability After Acquittal

  • Two kinds of acquittal:
    a. Acquittal on ground of non-perpetration (bars civil liability ex delicto).
    b. Acquittal on reasonable doubt (civil liability remains and may be proven by preponderance of evidence under Civil Code Art. 29).
  • The trial court’s decision indicated lingering doubt but did not categorically exonerate petitioner from negligence.
  • Hence, his acquittal was on reasonable doubt, allowing enforcement of civil liability for the same act or omission.

Analysis – Jurisdiction and Manchester Doctrine

  • Under the 1964 Rules (in effect when information was filed in 1983), civil liability was impliedly instituted without specifying damages or assessing filin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.