Crispin Dasalla, SR
Crispin Dasalla, SR
Crispin Dasalla, SR
SR., PETITIONER,
VS.
COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF NUEVA
ECIJA, BRANCH IV AND
ROGELIO
SUMANGIL, RESPONDEN
TS.
G.R. No. L-51461 April 26, 1991
Facts:
Crispin Dasallas son died when a
passenger jeepney owned and driven by private
respondent Rogelio Sumangil. Dasalla then
instituted an action for the recovery of damages
sustained for the death of his son.
The complaint prayed for payment of
P30,000.00 moral damages; exemplary
damages in an amount left to the discretion of
the court, attorney's fees of P5,000.00 and
costs.
On preliminary hearing, the defendant
resuscitated his defense for the dismissal of this
case on the ground that there has been payment
of the obligation stated in the complaint. He
presented the Pinanumpaang Salaysay,
executed by the plaintiff Crispin Dasalla, Sr.,
before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal.
Plaintiff alleged that he executed the
Pinanumpaang Salaysay for the awe purpose of
the accused not going to jail.
Sumangil prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint. He denied the allegations of the
complaint and alleged that this civil obligations to
Dasalla was already settled because Dasalla
executed an affidavit condoning, waiving and
forgiving all others damages he may be entitled
to after receipt of P6,000.00 from Sumangil.
The trial court dismissed the compliant
based on the preponderance of the evidence
presented by the defendant and that the plaintiff,
a first year high school and presumably knew
what has been contained in said document.
Dasalla appealed
directly to the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not the "Sinumpaang
Salaysay" which was made the basis
of the dismissal of the complaint by the
trial court, is contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third
person with a right recognized by law.
Ruling:
No!
There is no law which prohibits a person who has
incurred damages by reason of the act of another from
waiving whatever' rights he may have against the latter.
If the act causing damage to another also constitutes a
crime, the civil liability arising from the criminal act may
also be validly waived.
What is not allowed is to compromise or to waive
the criminal aspect of a case. The reason or principle
underlying the difference between rights which may be
waived and rights which may not be waived is that those
rights which may be waived are personal, while those
rights which may not be waived involve public interest
which may be affected.
In a compromise or a waiver of the civil
aspect of the case, the restriction imposed by
law is that it must be entered into before or
during litigation, never after final judgment. A
compromise on the civil aspect of a case is valid
even if it turns out to be unsatisfactory to either
or both of the parties
In the case of Balite v. People, express
condonation by the offended party has the effect
of waiving civil liability with regard to the interest
of the injured party. Under Art. 112 of the RPC
civil liability arising from an offense is
extinguished in the same manner as other
obligations, in accordance with the provisions of
the civil law. Also, under Article 2034, Civil Code
reads: "There may be a compromise upon the
civil liability arising from an offense; but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public
action for the imposition of the legal penalty".
It is true that the minimum amount of
compensatory damages for death that may be
awarded to petitioner at the time of the death of his
son is P12,000.00. However, for reasons stated in
the "Sinumpaang Salaysay," petitioner voluntarily
released the private respondent from his civil
obligations.
The affidavit executed by the petitioner,
releasing the respondent from additional civil liability
arising from the death of the former's son, is legal. It
is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
policy or public order. Consequently, he can no
longer institute a complaint to recover damages
arising from the same incident subject of the
affidavit.