Morta v. Alvizo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 10, 1976, after the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 090, Municipal Judge Cipriano B. Alvizo, Jr. rendered a decision convicting Edilberto Magayones of less serious physical injuries upon his plea of guilty. The accused was sentenced to two months of arresto mayor, with the plea of guilty considered a mitigating circumstance. No civil liability was imposed. Procedural History: Following the decision, Judge Alvizo contacted Fidel Morta, Sr., the father of the victim, explaining that the victim's presence was not necessary and that medical expenses could not be reimbursed due to lack of evidence presented on that point after the plea of guilty. Dissatisfied, Morta, Sr. complained to the Secretary of Justice, alleging that the judge "prostituted the judicial process" by convicting Magayones without hearing the victim and without holding a trial. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondent judge overlooked the elementary rule that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and that the civil action for civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless expressly waived or reserved. The complainant also noted that the victim suffered injuries requiring hospitalization and medical attendance for seven to ten days, incapacitating him from performing his customary labor for the same period.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in rendering judgment without setting the case for hearing for the reception of the offended party's evidence on civil liability after the accused pleaded guilty. Whether the respondent judge correctly failed to impose civil liability despite the implied institution of the civil action with the criminal action.
Ruling
The respondent judge is warned and admonished to be more careful in the performance of his duties. A copy of this resolution shall be attached to his personal record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failing to set a hearing for civil liability: The Court held that the respondent judge committed an error by overlooking the elementary rule that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately, pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. After Magayones had pleaded guilty, Judge Alvizo should have set the case for hearing for the reception of the offended party's evidence on the civil liability, as established in Veloso vs. Carmona. The Court emphasized that civil liability may be claimed in the criminal action even without a specific allegation of damages in the complaint or information, citing several cases including Roa vs. de la Cruz and People vs. Celorico. On the issue of imposing civil liability: The Court implicitly ruled that the respondent judge erred in not considering or imposing civil liability. The complaint alleged that the victim suffered injuries requiring medical attendance and hospitalization, and incapacitating him from labor. The Court reiterated that civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action, and the absence of specific allegations of damages in the complaint does not preclude its claim. Therefore, the judge should have proceeded to receive evidence to determine the extent of the civil liability arising from the offense.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits a procedural error by failing to set a hearing for the reception of the offended party's evidence on civil liability after an accused pleads guilty to a criminal offense, as civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action.