By: Yvonne A. Bioyo, 01 Dec 2018
FACTS:
Spouses Calapiz brought 8 year old Hanz Calapiz to Misamis Occidental Provicnial Hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended by petitioner, who suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo circumcision. With the parents' consent, petitioner performed the circumsion after the appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis and his testicles were swollen. The parents noticed that the child urinated abnormally after petitioner forcibly removed the catheter. Hanz was discharged over parents' protestations.
Thereafter, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of abscess formation between the base and shaft of his penis. Assuming the ulceration was brought about by the appendicitis, he was referred to a urologist. Hanz underwent cystostomy and was operated on three times to repair his damaged urethra, but it could not be fully repaired and reconstructed. Hanz' parents brought a criminal charge against petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries.
The RTC acquitted the petitioner for insufficiency of evidence but also held that petitioner was liable for moral damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC, sustaining the award of moral damages. It opined that even if the petitioner had been acquitted of the crime charged, the acquittal did not necessarily mean that he had not incurred civil liability considering that the Prosecution had preponderantly established the sufferings of Hanz as the result of the circumcision.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner's civil liability despite his acquittal of the crime charged.
HELD:
NO. It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability. In Manantan v. Court of Appeals, the Court elucidates on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as on the different effects of acquittal on the civil liability of the accused, viz:
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
Although it found the Prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime charged, the RTC did not err in determining and adjudging his civil liability for the same act complained of based on mere preponderance of evidence. In this connection, the Court reminds that the acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence did not require that the complainant's recovery of civil liability should be through the institution of a separate civil action for that purpose.
#END
