CIVIL ASPECT: Civil Action for Civil Liability ex delicto

No. 8634. October 22, 1913

US v. Heery
Trent, J.
FACTS:
Crime assault attended with lesiones graves (Codigo Penal)
Originally, as alleged in the complaint, frustrated murder
Nature Appeal from JUDGMENT of CFI Manila
Parties Injured Party: Alex Sternberg
Defendant-appellant: Joseph N Heery
CFI Manila - Sternberg filed a complaint against Heery for frustrated murder
(Part 1) - During the course of the trial, Sternberg was not allowed to adduce evidence
pertaining to damages he suffered due to the criminal act of the accused.
- Heery was sentenced by CFI Manila to 1 year and 3 months of prision correccional
for assault attended with lesiones graves.
- Despite this, Sternberg still appealed against the ruling because the lower court
didn’t allow to submit evidence as to the damages suffered by him
- Thus, the case was returned to CFI Manila

Note(based on separate opinion): not an appeal from a judgment in an action; partakes of the
nature of an objection to the execution by the trial court <through> Supreme Court
CFI Manila - The case was returned to this court for the purpose of completing the civil branch
(Appeal) of the case, despite already having a final judgment for the criminal case
- CFI Manila then rendered another judgment reiterating that Heery was guilty,
and that he should indemnify the injured party of Php50,500.
SC - Defendant appeals from this judgment, raising the question of double jeopardy
and excessive fine.

ISSUES with HOLDING:

1. W/N there exists double jeopardy in this case – NO.

- The mere fact that a pronouncement of judgment is reiterated does not mean that the defendant
has been twice put in jeopardy for a single offense. It would make no difference even if it was
restated a dozen times
o The only addition to the 2nd judgment was that of the civil liability; there was no attempt to
change the punishment imposed upon the defendant.

MAIN ISSUE (Restatement of SC of the ISSUE)

W/N remanding the case for determination of civil damages is to be considered as a modification of the
punishment – NO.

- SC: In this jurisdiction, civil liability of the accused is determined in the criminal action unless the
injured party expressly waives such liability or reserves his right to have the civil damages
determined in a separate action. It is therefore error for the court to refuse a request of the injured
party during the course of the criminal prosecution to submit evidence of his damages.

- The prohibition against double jeopardy is confined to the same criminal offense. Thus, this means it
does not apply for different suits against a single act.
 o the same act may be an offense (in the sense of crime) against the State, and an offense (in the
sense of tort) against a private person. A judgment for the one is not a bar to the other.
- It is also a well-settled principle that every person criminally liable for a felony or misdemeanor is
also civilly liable. Being tried for civil liability and criminal liability is NOT double jeopardy.

- Lastly, SC stated that civil liability imposed for the commission of crimes was not intended to be
merged into the punishment for the crime. The civil liability is served to the citizen and not to the
state. As the civil liability is no part of the punishment f or the crime, there would have been no
question of double jeopardy.

2. W/N damages awarded were excessive – YES.

- Defendant: damages awarded (Php50,500) is excessive, not supported by the evidence
- Physicians' fees of Php500 and Php1,300 for 3 months' salary is justified by the loss of the injured
party’s capacity to perform the work in which he was then engaged.
- The remainder, Php48,700, appears to have been allowed on account of the permanent
diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. The evidence of record does not establish such
disability with certainty which will justify an award for that purpose. Thus, SC removed this part of
the award.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Judgment Modified; damages reduced.

DICTA:
Comparison of civil liability in criminal cases (US and Phils):
"The civil liability established in Chapter II, Title II, of this book comprises:
"1. Restitution;
"2. Reparation of the damage caused;
"3 . Indemnification for consequential damages."

In US common law, Restitution also exists… Reparation exists in the form of damages caused to property
(in case of robbery, theft, etc.)… Indemnification also exists in American Law.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Moreland, J. (Concurring & Dissenting)
Long discussion on civil procedure, and disputes why the main opinion had to discuss questions on
double jeopardy.
- States that the appeal of Heery should’ve only been confined to questions pertaining to the civil
liability, as that was the only question remanded to the CFI of Manila.
- If there was in fact double jeopardy, it should’ve been made during the plea, on trial.
o Since there was no subsequent trial in this case pertaining to the criminal offense, deciding
on such issue was indeed superfluous.
- There was no new trial in the subsequent determination of civil liability. If anything, the evidence
of guilt was reintroduced simply to have appear in the record of that proceeding the foundation of
his civil responsibility. No prejudice resulted from the restatement of the guilt of defendant, and
the proceedings for the civil liability was made orderly, symmetrical and clear.
- Lastly, Justice Moreland didn’t find it fit to rule on the question of the amount of damages. He
suggested to have the case remanded for a more proper determination of costs.