Elcano vs. Hill case

NATUREAppeal from an order of the CFI Quezon CityFACTSReginald Hill, a minor in so far married at the time of occurrence, was unlaw in full prosecuted for the killing of Agapito Elcano (son of Pedro), and was acquitted for overleap of intent to kill, coupled with mistake. Pedro Elcano filed a complaint for recovery of damages from Reginald and his sustain Atty Marvin. CFI dismissed it.ISSUESWON the cultivated feat for damages is barred by the amnesty of Reginald in the unlawful case wherein the compriseion for civil liability was non reversed2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last par) of the CC can be use against Atty. Hill, nonwithstanding the fact that at the time of the occurrence, Reginald, though a minor, victuals with and getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married.HELD1. NOThe acquittal of Reginal Hill in the savage case has not extinguished his liability forquasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.Barredo v Garcia(dual character civil and criminalof fault or negligence as a inception of obligation)The above case is pertinent because it shows that the selfsame(prenominal) act may fill in chthonic both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action of the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been the subject of acriminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code.It is also to be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being sued.It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code.Here is therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being aproper subject matter either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an on the whole separate and independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1402 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the separate identicalness of a c quasi-delitoor culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case aria for which, after un a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.Culpa aquilianaincludes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of a penal law, whether unforced or negligent.-ART 1162 Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, (on quasi-delicts) and by special laws. More precisely, Article 2177 of the new code providesART 277. tariff for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising front negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover dama ges twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.