Dear PAO,

My 14-year-old son, who is still a minor, was involved in a commotion last night. He was one of the individuals accused of conspiring with others to hit and punch the victim. The victim suffered serious physical injuries. However, my son is just a minor, I believe he cannot be held criminally or civilly liable. The parents of the victim are claiming that we, as his parents, are the ones who are liable. Is that correct? Thank you for your response.

Hannah Beatrice

Dear Hannah Beatrice,

According to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

“Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. – Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.”

In addition, Article 101 of the RPC enumerates the rules regarding the civil liability of persons criminally liable who is either an imbecile, an insane, or a minor. It states that:

“Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. – The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:

“First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.”

It is well-settled that “[e]very person criminally liable is also civilly liable x x x. However, it does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. Exemption from criminal liability does not always include exemption from civil liability.” (CICL XXX vs. People and Glenn Redoquerio, G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa)

In the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 101 of the RPC to mean that the civil liability of parents for criminal offenses committed by their minor children is direct and primary. The Supreme Court said:

“Accordingly, just like the rule in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, under the foregoing provision the civil liability of the parents for crimes committed by their minor children is likewise direct and primary, and also subject to the defense of lack of fault or negligence on their part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family.”

Regarding the situation with your son, both you and your husband, as his parents, may be held civilly liable. Our laws clearly state that a minor who commits a crime may be exempt from criminal liability, but not from civil liability. If it is proven that your son committed serious physical injury against the victim, your civil liability in relation to your son’s case will be direct and primary. In such a case, you must show that you exercised the necessary diligence in order to avoid liability.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]