Case Digest (G.R. No. 102942)
Facts:
Amado F. Cabaero and Carmen C. Perez v. Hon. Alfredo C. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, April 18, 1997, Supreme Court En Banc, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners, Amado F. Cabaero and Carmen C. Perez, were charged by private complainant Epifanio Ceralde with estafa in Criminal Case No. 90‑18826 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The Information, filed October 18, 1990, alleged that petitioners conspired to defraud Ceralde of P1,550,000 in connection with the purchase of parcels of land and the encashment of a bank check. Petitioners pleaded not guilty at arraignment (January 7, 1991). Atty. Ambrosio Blanco entered as private prosecutor (Feb. 5, 1991).
The RTC judge originally assigned inhibited herself (Feb. 11, 1991) and the case was re‑raffled to Branch VII, presided by respondent Judge Alfredo C. Cantos. On April 2, 1991, petitioners filed an Answer with Counterclaim asserting that the loan proceeds were properly applied to the land purchase and that the Information was malicious; they prayed, among other reliefs, for P1,500,000 moral damages, P500,000 exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. At initial hearing (Apr. 15, 1991) the prosecution orally moved to expunge/dismiss the answer with counterclaim; memoranda followed raising (1) nonpayment of docket fees and (2) that a compulsory counterclaim was barred for not being filed before arraignment.
By Order dated July 1, 1991, Judge Cantos granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered the Answer with Counterclaim and related pleadings expunged from the records on the ground that “this is a criminal case wherein the civil liability of the acused (sic) is impliedly instituted therein.” Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated August 21, 1991. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In the Supreme Court, petitioners relied on Section 1, Rule 111 (implied civil action in criminal cases) and on Javier v. Intermediate Appellate Court (171 SCRA 605) to argue that a compulsory counterclaim should be permitted in such criminal proceedings. The Court required the appearance of the Solicitor General, who in his manifestation...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Cantos commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering that the petitioners’ Answer with Counterclaim and related pleadings be expunged from the records of Criminal Case...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)