CRIMPRO RULE 111

RILLON VS RILLON G.R. No. L-13172

Date: April 28, 1960.
Ponente: LABRADOR, J.
GILBERT RILLON and MARCELINA RILLON, FILEMON RILLON, defendant and appellee.
plaintiffs and appellants,

This is a civil action instituted by the minor Gilbert Rillon, assisted by his mother, Marcelina Rillon, as his
guardian ad litem
FACTS
Case timeline:

1.Sometime in September 1953 in the Province of La Union, the Filemon Rillon (defendant) using force
and intimidation cohabited and proceeded to have carnal knowledge with Marcelina Rillon. As a result,
Marcelina Rillon gave birth to a child after 180 days from the carnal intercourse and within 300 days
thereof.
2. Plaintiff Marcelina Rillon and Filemon Rillon are both single at the time of conception without any
legal impediments to marry and continue in the same status. This is a civil case for support, recognition
and damages instituted by the minor Gilbert Rillon, assisted his mother. It is alleged that the minor
needs food for subsistence as he is living with his mother who has no means to support him. His
mother is also asking the defendant to recognize the minor as a natural child and provide him with
support.
DEFENDANT’s CONTENTION:
1. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the action is premature as there is no final
judgment in a criminal case for rape against the defendant and no cause of action has accrued
against him.

ISSUE/S
1. WON a criminal prosecution for rape should be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment
before instituting a civil action based on said offense in favor of the offended woman and the
recognition of the offspring - NO
RATIO
Art. 30 states that, “When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance
of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of”. This article implies the right of an
offended party to bring a separate civil action for the criminal act without instituting the criminal
proceedings for the prosecution of the offense. A civil action may now be instituted without and
prosecuted to final judgment without awaiting the institution and termination of a criminal action.

RULING
Remanded to the lower for further proceedings.
Notes
INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION UNNECESSARY; RULE 107 OF THE RULES OF COURT
REPEALED. — The provisions of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court are no longer in force because a civil
action may now be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment without waiting the institution and
termination of a criminal action (Arts. 30 and 283 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). These new
provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court and the latter must give
way thereto. In consequence, it is not now necessary that a criminal prosecution for rape be first instituted
and presented to final judgment before a civil action based on said offense in favor of the offended woman
and recognition of the offspring can be instituted and presented to final judgment. The provisions of Rule
107 of the present Rules promulgated in 1940, are, therefore, considered repealed or modified pro tanto by
Articles 30 and 283 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
DIAO
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=184