G.R. No. L-15805




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-15805 February 28, 1961 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JESUS VERANO, defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant. Cecilio P. Luminarias for defendant-appellant. PAREDES, J.: On June 22, 1953, TPU Truck bearing plate No. 555, of the Mindanao Bus Company, then driven by Jesus Verano, figured in a vehicular accident resulting in the death of Dominador Paras and injuries of twenty-three (23) others, all passengers of said truck. On various dates after the accident, the Mindanao Bus Company paid the victims certain sums of money and all of them including the heirs of the deceased Dominador Paras, waived and/or renounced their rights to recover damages (Exhibits 2-11, or 2a, 3a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a and 11-a). Verano was subsequently charged be more the CFI of Lanao, for Homicide with multiple physical injuries, thru reckless imprudence. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged which is penalized with prision correccional in its medium and maximum period to be imposed in its medium period in view of the absence of any modifying circumstance, or three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, the herein accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which should not be less than one (1) year and one (1) day nor more than three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Dominador Paras in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. As stated above, no indemnity is herein awarded in favor of Rufina Ventura, Ignacio Ventura, Fiargilio Ventura, Antonio Ventura and Uldarico Alta in view of the fact that according to Exhibits "2" and "5" they had already waived their rights to said indemnity. The herein accused should be credited with one-half of his preventive imprisonment. Defendant Verano presented a Motion for Reconsideration, not contesting the finding of guilt, but the propriety or legality of the indemnity award of P5,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Dominador Paras and his liability for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The movant contended that the civil liability arising from the offense had already been erased, the heirs of the deceased having waived and renounced such right upon payment to them by the Mindanao Bus Company of P3,000.00 (Exhs. 3 or 3-a). Denying the motion, the trial court voiced its opinion, thus: Now in the issue brought forth in the motion for reconsideration the point is, whether or not the civil liability attached to the commission of the crime as provided for in Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code, can be waived. Unlike those damages provided for in the new Civil Code as moral damages and those other forms of damages provided therein which can be waived, the civil liability of the accused arising from the effects of the crime cannot be waived. An appeal from the decision was perfected to the Court of Appeals. However, in its Resolution dated June 25, 1959, the appellate court certified the case to this Court, on purely questions of law, to wit: (1) "Whether or not the right to recover upon the civil liability of an accused arising from the crime, may be waived; (2) "Whether or not such waiver may be made in behalf of the minor heirs by their mother, who is not their judicial guardian; (3) "Whether or not the waiver in favor of the Mindanao Bus Company, as employer of the appellant, wipes out his personal civil liability for the crime, and (4) "Whether or not liability to subsidiary imprisonment "attaches in case of insolvency and failure of the accused to pay the indemnity awarded in the judgment. The law provides that one criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art. 100, Revised Penal Code); that employers engaged in any kind of industry are subsidiarily liable (civilly) for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of their duties (Art. 103) and that civil liability includes, among others, indemnification for consequential damages (Art. 104). It is also provided that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately (See. 1, a, Rule 107, Rules of Court). In the case at bar, the heirs of the deceased Dominador Paras executed a "Deed of Waiver and Renunciation of All Right to Ask Damages" (Exh. 3 or 3-a), which contains the following: That for and in consideration of the money which is Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) Philippine Currency which we have requested as payment for damages and indemnization for the accidental death of my husband and the father of my children; and paid to me by Mindanao Bus Company thru its manager Mr. Felix R. Acero; and our receipt of the same amount is hereby acknowledged; in this I have waived and renounced all my right and all our right to ask for whatever more kind of damages proper for me and for us in connection with and due to the accidental death of my husband and the father of my children against the same company, Mindanao Bus Company. That by virtue hereof, the same Mindanao Bus Company has no more obligation with me and with us the heirs of the late Dominador Paras and it is now free from all obligations to me and to us the heirs of the late Dominador Paras, and I have and we have no more right to ask for any more kind of damages regarding the death of Dominador Paras because we have already been justly and duly paid the amount to our complete satisfaction. There can hardly be any doubt that this is a waiver in favor of the Mindanao Bus Company. The query posed is: Does this waiver embrace also the civil liability of appellant Verano? The person principally liable is the driver — appellant, since it is he who committed the criminal act. However, since the Mindanao Bus Company is admittedly his employer, the law makes it (Bus Company) subsidiarily liable for the civil obligation arising from the accident, and in default of the person criminally liable (Verano), responsible for the civil liability. Clearly enough, if the Court sustains the award of P5,000.00 in favor of the heirs of deceased Dominador Paras, ultimately said heirs, in the event that Verano fails to pay, will have to look upon the Mindanao Bus Company for the enforcement of appellant's civil liability, which has already been satisfied or partly extinguished by the payment of P3,000.00 by the said company (Section 112, Revised Penal Code). The award against appellant Verano, would tend to provide the heirs of deceased Paras double indemnity, which is violative of the tenet "not to eat the cake and have it too". While it is true that in the waiver (Exhibit 3 or 3-a), the name of the appellant does not appear, it is believed that the same necessarily includes him because, as has heretofore been stated, the bus company will, in the final analysis, have to pay. The contention that the right to recover civil liability, whether arising from an offense or otherwise, cannot be waived, is unmeritorious. The Rules of Court specifically provides that same is waivable. It should, however, be noted that the waiver in question was signed by the victim's widow on her behalf and "in the name of my being their (the minor children's) mother and guardian" (par. 1), While under Article 320 of the new Civil Code, the widow (Mrs. Paras) is the legal administratrix of the property pertaining to the children under parental authority, said article gave her no authority, as such legal administratrix, to compromise their claims for indemnity arising from their father's death, "for a compromise has always been deemed equivalent to an alienation (transigere est alienare) and is an act of strict ownership that goes beyond mere administration" (Visaya, et al. v. Suguitan, et al., G.R. No. L-8300, November 18, 1955). Moreover, the court's approval, necessary in compromises entered into by guardians or parents (Art. 2032, New Civil Code,), is wanting in the case at bar. In view hereof, and considering that of the P5,000 indemnity awarded by the trial court, only the sum of P3,000 was paid pursuant to the compromise, it would seem that the heirs of the deceased Dominador Paras were still entitled to the sum of P2,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, subject to the limitation imposed of Art. 39, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. In other words, the amount of indemnity granted by the trial court is reduced to P2,000.00. All other portions of the decision appealed from, not contrary to the terms of this decision, remain in full force and effect. Without costs. Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation