WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ACQUITS THE ACCUSED OR DISMISSES THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE CIVIL ACTION IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXTINGUISHED.

Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 100).  The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant, (Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 502, 512-513) is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a)).

The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504, 514 (2003); Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, supra note 16, at 511). Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him.

however, when the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished.

In other words, when the trial court acquits the accused (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143, 151; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II, 412 Phil. 795 (2001) or dismisses the case (Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., 384 Phil. 322 (2000) on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability. (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II). (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).