JERVOSO VS PEOPLE Case Digest G.R. No. 89306. September 13, 1990

Topic: Criminal Procedure, Rule 111, Rules of Court

FACTS:

In this petition for review, the petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification of the penalty only, the decision of the trial court which convicted petitioner Marcelo Jervoso of homicide for the fatal stabbing of Rogelio Jervoso, but which appreciated in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The trial court and the Court of Appeals also convicted his wife, Norma Closa, of slight physical injuries committed against the deceased.

Petitioner’s contention: The Court of Appeals erred in ordering them (petitioners) to pay indemnity of P30,000 to the heirs of Rogelio Jervoso despite the reservation by said heirs of their right to file a separate civil action against the accused, which they did file in the RTC. "

ISSUE/HELD: WON the filing of separate civil action precludes the offended party from recovering damages in the criminal case against the accused. AFFIRMATIVE

RATIO DICIDENDI:

The filing of a separate civil action for damages against the accused by the heirs of the deceased victim is authorized under Article 33 of the Civil Code.

The term "physical injuries" in Art. 33 is used in a generic sense. It includes consummated, frustrated, or attempted homicide (Madeja vs. Cruz) Having reserved and filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila a separate civil action to recover the civil liability of the accused arising from the crimes charged, the heirs of the deceased Rogelio Jervoso, are precluded from recovering damages in the criminal case against the accused, for they are not entitled to recover damages twice for the same criminal act of the accused. The trial court erred in awarding to the heirs of Rogelio Jervoso in the criminal case P30,000 as civil indemnity for his death despite their reservation to file a separate civil action for that purpose. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in affirming the award.

The second assignment of error raises a purely factual issue: whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the accused of homicide. That issue may not be reviewed by this Court in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, where only legal issues may be raised.