Case Digest (G.R. No. 132659)
Facts:
Conrado Magbanua and Rosemarie Magbanua‑Taborada v. Pilar S. Junsay, G.R. No. 132659, February 12, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosemarie Magbanua, then a housemaid in the household of respondent Pilar S. Junsay, was charged in Criminal Case No. 28 for Robbery before the RTC, Branch XLI, Bacolod City; her co‑accused Ernesto Fernandez and a certain “Gudo” remained at large and only Rosemarie was tried. The Information alleged entry through a hole in the kitchen door and the taking of assorted jewelry and cash. The prosecution relied on an alleged confession by Rosemarie, which the defense claimed was extracted under duress.
On December 20, 1985, the RTC (Branch XLI) acquitted Rosemarie for insufficiency of evidence, finding that her admission was inadmissible because it was extracted after physical maltreatment and that other prosecution evidence was discredited. The decretal paragraph ordered acquittal and cancellation of bail. On March 9, 1987, Rosemarie (assisted by Artemio Taborada) and her father Conrado Magbanua filed a Complaint for Damages in RTC, Branch 51, Bacolod City (Civil Case No. 4361), alleging malicious prosecution, humiliation, physical injuries, and monetary losses; they sought moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Respondent Pilar S. Junsay (the complaining witness and employer), and respondents Police Officers Ibarra Lopez and Juanito Jacela, answered and Pilar filed a counterclaim. Pilar moved to dismiss on prescription grounds under Article 1146 of the Civil Code; petitioners opposed, insisting the action was for malicious prosecution and the one‑year/three‑month period from acquittal controlled. The RTC granted petitioners’ pauper status and, on March 24, 1988, denied the motion to dismiss, treating the cause as malicious prosecution.
At pre‑trial the parties stipulated that the claim was for malicious prosecution. Petitioners offered exhibits including Rosemarie’s medico‑legal certificate, the Information filed, the RTC criminal decision of acquittal, and an NAPOLCOM adjudication suspending the two police officers for misconduct. The RTC, Branch 51, admitted Exhibits A–E and, after trial, on July 25, 1995, dismissed the Complaint for Damages, finding petitioners failed to prove malice and absence of probable cause; the court held that respondent Pilar as a robbery victim had no sinister motive in reporting the crime and the police were performing their duties. Petitioners appealed.
The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CV No. 51750, affirmed the RTC in toto by Decision dated Janu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Complaint for Damages timely or barred by prescription under Article 1146 of the Civil Code?
- Did the filing of Criminal Case No. 28 against Rosemarie constitute malicious prosecution because respondents acted without probable cause?
- Were the respondents impelled by legal malice (a sinister design to vex or humiliate) in instituti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)