G.R. No. 6668 - People vs. Laserna

The case involves petitioners Amado F. Cabaero and Carmen C. Perez facing an estafa charge, alleging that they defrauded private respondent Epifanio Ceralde of P1,550,000.00.
The criminal action originated as Criminal Case No. 90-18826 filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which was later re-raffled from Branch IV (due to a conflict arising from the presiding judge’s familial connection) to Branch VII, presided over by Judge Alfredo C. Cantos.
The Information charged that during a period in 1987, the accused induced Ceralde to advance funds purported for the purchase of six parcels of land in Pangasinan, with the understanding that the funds would be returned upon approval of a loan from Solid Bank.

That the money loaned had been duly applied to purchase the land, rendering the Information unjustified and malicious.
A prayer for relief seeking dismissal or quashing of the estafa information and the civil action impliedly instituted therein, along with orders for Ceralde to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

During the initial hearing on April 15, 1991, the prosecution moved that the answer with counterclaim be expunged from the records.

In an Order dated July 1, 1991, Judge Cantos directed that the Answer with Counterclaim, along with related pleadings (including the memorandum of the private prosecutor and subsequent supplements), be expunged from the records on the ground that the civil liability of the accused was impliedly instituted in a criminal case.
On July 17, 1991, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said expunging order.
The respondent court denied the motion through an Order dated August 21, 1991.
Petitioners then filed the instant petition under Rule 65, assailing the July 1 and August 21 orders for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of the judge’s jurisdiction.

The prosecution, represented by Atty. Ambrosio Blanco (private prosecutor), argued two primary grounds for expunging the counterclaim:

The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the counterclaim due to non-payment of the prescribed docket fees.
The counterclaim was procedurally barred because it was not filed before arraignment.

Precedents such as Javier vs. Intermediate Appellate Court support the filing of a counterclaim in a criminal case when the civil aspect is not expressly reserved.
As the counterclaim was compulsory by its very nature, the payment of docket fees was unnecessary and the filing period was not clearly defined in the Rules of Court.

The facts of the case thereby generated broader questions regarding the appropriate venue and timing for litigating civil claims impliedly instituted in a criminal case.

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering that the Answer with Counterclaim (and related pleadings) be expunged from the criminal case records.

Whether the filing of the compulsory counterclaim in the criminal case should be allowed despite the procedural complexities, including issues on the payment of docket fees and the timeline for filing such counterclaims.
Whether the judicial actions taken—particularly the expunging order—improperly disregarded the implied institution of the civil action for recovery of civil liability under Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Whether the application of rules on civil procedure to an impliedly instituted civil case in a criminal proceeding creates undue delay and confusion in the administration of criminal justice.