QUINTO vs. ANDRES (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 155791. March 16, 2005

MELBA QUINTO, Petitioners,

vs.

DANTE ANDRES and RANDYVER PACHECO, Respondents.

FACTS:

Edison Garcia and playmate Wilson Quinto who are both 11 years old saw Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited them to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert. Wilson agreed while Garcia seeing that it was dark inside, opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from the entrance of the drainage system. Only Pacheco had a flashlight.  

Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and left without saying a word.  Then, Andres came out, went back inside, and emerged again carrying Wilson who was already dead.  He laid his body down in the grassy area.

Garcia, shocked, fled from the scene.  Andres went to the house of Melba Quinto, Wilson’s mother, and informed her that her son had died.  They rushed to the drainage culvert. Wilson was buried without any complaints filed.

November 28, 1995: National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) took the sworn statements of Pacheco, Garcia and Quinto

Pacheco alleged that he had never been to the drainage system catching fish with Andres and Wilson. Dr. Dominic Aguda of the NBI’s autopsy showed that the cause death is drowning with traumatic head injuries as contributory.

NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against Andres and Pacheco with the RTC

Dr. Dominic Aguda testified that Wilson could have fallen, and that the occipital portion of his head could have hit a blunt object,  That the 14x7-centimeter hematoma at the back of Wilson’s head could have rendered the him unconscious so he drowned.  The 4x3-centimeter abrasion on the right side of Wilson’s face could have also been caused by rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement, or by contact with a rough surface.  He also stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was no sign of strangulation.

The respondents filed a demurer to evidence which the trial court granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

RTC: granted demurer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It also held that it could not hold the respondents liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove their liability for Wilson’s death.

The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals (CA) insofar as the civil aspect of the case was concerned. The CA rendered judgment affirming the assailed order of the RTC. Hence petition.

ISSUES:

WHETHER PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD RESPONDENTS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF WILSON QUINTO.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that while it is true that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The civil liability of such person established in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.18 When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. 

Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendants.

In the present case, The SC ruled that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.

It bears stressing that the prosecution relied solely on the collective testimonies of Garcia, who was not an eyewitness, and Dr. Aguda.

The SC agree with the petitioner that, as evidenced by the Necropsy Report of Dr. Dominic Aguda, the deceased sustained a 14x7-centimeter hematoma on the scalp. But as to how the deceased sustained the injury, Dr. Aguda was equivocal. He presented two possibilities: (a) that the deceased could have been hit by a blunt object or instrument applied with full force; or (b) the deceased could have slipped, fell hard and his head hit a hard object.

The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.