Civil liability arising from crime (Article 30, Civil Code)
Article 30 simply means that a civil action arising from crime can proceed as
long as there is no pending criminal action for the same act or omission
complained of as a crime. In such a case, only a preponderance of evidence is
required in the civil action to prove entitlement to damages. However, if
there is a pending criminal action for the same act or omission, the
suspension of the civil action is government by Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court.
It must be emphasized that Article 30 does not refer to separate and independent civil actions. Separate and independent civil actions can proceed despite the pendency of a criminal action for the same act or omission.
Whenever the offended party institutes the civil action before the filing of the criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended until the court renders a final judgment in the criminal action. However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present. In case of consolidation, both the criminal and the civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly. (Section 2[a] of Rule 111, Rules of Court)
The civil action is deemed instituted together with the criminal case except when the civil action is reserved. The reservation should be made at the institution of the criminal case. In independent civil actions, not being dependent on the criminal case, such reservation would be required not for preserving the cause of action but in order to allow the civil action to proceed separately from the criminal case in interest of good order and procedure. (Rafael Reyes Trucking v. People, G.R. No. 129029, April 03, 2000)
Indeed, independent civil actions already filed and pending may still be sought to be consolidated in the criminal case before final judgment is rendered in the latter case. When no criminal proceedings are instituted, a separate civil action may be brought to demand the civil liability, and a preponderance of evidence is sufficient to warrant a favorable judgment therefor. The same rule applies if the information were to be dismissed upon motion of the prosecutor. (Reyes Trucking v. People, G.R. No. 129029, April 03, 2000)
Paras gave the following explanation:
A accused B of stealing his (A’s) watch, and so he (A) brought a civil action against B to get the watch and damages. If the fiscal institutes criminal proceeding against B the civil case is suspended in the meantime (Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court), this case not being one of those for which there can be an independent civil action. But if the fiscal does not, then the civil case continues, and here, a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient to enable A to recover.
In People vs. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007, September 02, 1994), it was observed that what Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently of any criminal action. The Supreme Court explained further:
Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend support to the ruling in [People v.] Sendaydiego [G.R. Nos. L-33252-54, January 20, 1978]. Nowhere in its text is there a grant of authority to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil liability ex delicto when his death supervenes during appeal. What Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the quantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidence and not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing or invoking Article 30 to justify the survival of the civil action despite extinction of the criminal would in effect merely beg the question of whether civil liability ex delicto survives upon extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused during appeal of his conviction. This is because whether asserted in the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal.