ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 138238 September 2, 2003 - EDUARDO BALITAOSAN v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

  • A.M. No. 02-10-614-RTC September 3, 2003 - RE: EDITORIAL OF THE NEGROS CHRONICLE AND OTHER CHARGES OF A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST JUDGE ROGELIO CARAMPATAN

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136274 September 3, 2003 - SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 128296 September 8, 2003 - NASIPIT LUMBER CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 September 12, 2003 - MARIA CRISTINA OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA v. ALBERTO L. LERMA

  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI

  • G.R. No. 136729 September 23, 2003 - ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 153885 & 156214 September 24, 2003 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148332 September 30, 2003 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORP.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 153845   September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 153845. September 11, 2003.]

    EFREN SALVAN y PRESENES, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:


    This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to set aside the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Malolos, Bulacan, dated February 12, 2002, denying due course to petitioner Efren Salvan’s Notice of Partial Appeal, and the Order of the same court, dated June 6, 2002, denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 1 The petition also specifically prays for the issuance of an Order directing the trial court to give due course to the petitioner’s Notice of Partial Appeal. 2

    Petitioner Efren Salvan, a bus driver, was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide for the death of John Barry Abogado, in Criminal Case No. 718-M-00 before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13. 3 At his arraignment, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court then proceeded to receive evidence to determine the civil liability of petitioner. During the course of the hearing, petitioner and private complainant Edna Abogado, the mother of the accused, agreed to amicably settle the civil aspect of the case. 4

    On October 23, 2001, the trial court promulgated its Decision, the decretal portion of which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple negligence resulting in homicide as per the recitals in the information, punished under the second paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor. Accused is directed to pay to the heirs of the deceased the net sum of P100,000.00, representing the difference between the P100,000.00 earlier paid by way of amicable settlement herein and the sum of:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    a) P50,000.00 in actual damages;

    b) P50,000.00 in civil indemnity; and

    c) P100,000.00 in moral damages.

    SO ORDERED. 5

    Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration praying for the deletion of the additional award of damages. 6 He also filed an Application for Probation on the same date. 7 On January 28, 2002, the trial court denied the petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but gave due course to the petitioner’s Application for Probation. 8

    Petitioner then filed a Notice of Partial Appeal on February 8, 2002. On February 12, 2002, the trial court issued the first assailed Order, the dispositive portion of which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Considering that the application for probation of the accused was given due course as per the Order of this Court dated January 28, 2002, and the application for probation is deemed under the law to be a waiver of the right to appeal, the Notice of Appeal is hereby DENIED due course.

    SO ORDERED. 9

    Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on June 6, 2002. 10

    Petitioner is now before us, alleging that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED GIVING DUE COURSE TO ACCUSED’S NOTICE OF PARTIAL APPEAL EXCLUSIVELY ON THE AWARD OF DAMAGES. 11

    In Rule 41 of the 1964 Rules of Court, the dismissal of appeals was governed by the following provisions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 13. Effect of failure to file notice, bond, or record on appeal. — Where the notice of appeal, appeal bond or record on appeal is not filed within the period of time herein provided, the appeal shall be dismissed.

    SEC. 14. Motion to dismiss appeal. — A motion to dismiss an appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in the preceding section, may be filed in the Court of First Instance prior to the transmittal of the record to the appellate court.

    Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for the grounds to dismiss appeals, to wit:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Sec. 13. Dismissal of appeal. — Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may motu proprio or on motion dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. 12

    The above-quoted rule limits the grounds for dismissal of appeals to very specific instances. The filing of an application for probation is not one of them.

    In the parallel case of Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 13 we held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    His Honor was apparently incognizant of the principle that dismissals of appeals from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court by the latter are authorized only in the instances specifically set forth in Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The succeeding provision, Section 14 of said Rule 41, provides that" (a) motion to dismiss an appeal may be filed in the (Regional Trial) Court . . . prior to the transmittal of the record to the appellate court;" and the grounds are limited to those "mentioned in the preceding section," i.e., Section 13 to wit: where "the notice of appeal, appeal bond, or record on appeal is not filed within the period of time herein provided. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    These two (2) sections clearly establish "that. . . . (A) trial court may not dismiss an appeal as frivolous, or on the ground that the case has become moot and academic, such step devolving upon the appellate courts. Otherwise, the way would be opened for (regional trial) courts . . . to forestall review or reversal of their decisions by higher courts, no matter how erroneous or improper such decisions should be. 14

    Although the aforementioned ruling was made in a civil case, we see no reason why the principles enunciated therein cannot be applied, by analogy, to a criminal case, such as the one at bar. Thus, aside from its competence to dismiss withdrawn appeals, 15 the Regional Trial Court’s power to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances provided for in Rule 41, Section 13.

    Going now to the issue of probation, we recall that the law which governs all matters relating to probation is Presidential Decree No. 968, commonly known as the Probation Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1990. The provision of the law that is pertinent to the current controversy reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best; Provided, That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.

    Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.

    An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

    Relying solely on the letter of the law, the filing of the application for probation should be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. However, in the case of Budlong v. Apalisok, 16 we had occasion to rule that the above provision of the Probation Law clearly provides only for the suspension of the sentence imposed on the accused by virtue of his application for probation. It has absolutely no bearing on civil liability. This ruling was clarified in Salgado v. Court of Appeals, 17 wherein we ruled that, although the execution of sentence is suspended by the grant of probation, it does not follow that the civil liability of the offender, if any, is extinguished.

    This intertwining of criminal and civil liability is best understood by analyzing the criminal act itself which, by its very nature, causes two (2) classes of injury. The first is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty and the second is the personal injury caused to the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated thru indemnity, which is civil in nature. 18 This has been codified in our criminal law, where every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. 19 Thus, Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code provides that, except in case of extinction of civil liability, the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason. Furthermore, this principle has found its way into our rules of criminal procedure, where it is provided that an action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal action unless reserved by the offended party. 20 And yet it must be remembered that the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime committed: it is personal to the victim. 21

    The Probation Law prohibits a judge from entertaining or granting an application for probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The fact of conviction most certainly refers to the criminal liability of the accused, as a result of a finding made by a judge that he is guilty of the crime charged. However, the appeal in this case involved only the civil aspect of the trial court’s judgment. Hence, we see no reason why, between the conjoined criminal and civil aspects of a felony, a line cannot be drawn marking where the one springs from the other. Even if by definition civil liability ex delicto arises from the criminal act, once its existence is established, it should be treated separately from the criminal liability. Indeed there is even categorical statutory basis to state that it subsists despite the extinguishment of the criminal liability from which it arose. This was the finding in Budlong v. Apalisok and Salgado v. Court of Appeals.

    Thus, we rule that, in an appeal from a judgment of conviction, the criminal liability and the civil liability ex delicto should be considered independently, each with its own corresponding effects. In the present case, the law that bars an appeal of the judgment of conviction, as well as its corresponding criminal liability, should not bar an appeal of the civil aspect of the same judgment.

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Malolos, Bulacan, dated February 12, 2002, and June 6, 2002 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let this case be REMANDED to the court of origin which is ORDERED to give due course to the petitioner’s Notice of Partial Appeal.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Azcuna, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 42; penned by Judge Andres B. Soriano.

    2. Rollo, p. 17.

    3. Rollo, p. 24.

    4. Rollo, p. 11.

    5. Rollo, p. 27.

    6. Rollo, p. 37.

    7. Rollo, p. 38.

    8. Rollo, p. 39.

    9. Rollo, p. 42.

    10. Rollo, p. 49.

    11. Rollo, p. 13.

    12. As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, 21 May 2000.

    13. G.R. No. 109645, 25 July 1994, 234 SCRA 455.

    14. Id., at 493-494.

    15. RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, Section 12.

    16. 207 Phil. 804 (1983).

    17. G.R. No. 89606, 30 August 1990, 189 SCRA 304.

    18. Ramos v. Gonong, G.R. No. 42010, 31 August 1976, 76 SCRA 559, cited in Budlong v. Apalisok, 207 Phil. 804 (1983).

    19. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 100, cited in Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002.

    20. RULES of COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1, cited in Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002.

    21. U.S. v. Neery, 25 Phil. 600, cited in Budlong v. Apalisok, 207 Phil. 804 (1983).

    G.R. No. 153845   September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED