Case Digest (G.R. No. 78657-60)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Francisco H. Escano, Jr., as Presiding Judge of Branch II, Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City, G.R. Nos. 78657-60, February 07, 1991, Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.
On January 2, 1986, the City Fiscal of Mandaue City filed four separate criminal informations for Estafa against Carlos Calianga Romulo Pepito and Jun Lozano in the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City. The four informations were consolidated for joint trial and assigned to Hon. Francisco H. Escano, Jr., the respondent judge.
Believing that the offended parties were seeking to enforce civil liabilities by way of actual damages, the respondent judge ordered the clerk of court to require the offended parties to pay the corresponding filing fees pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. On April 8, 1987, the respondent directed the clerk to explain in writing why his prior order had not been complied with.
The prosecuting fiscal moved for reconsideration, arguing (1) that the respondent's order nullified paragraph 1, Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides for the implied institution of a civil action with the criminal action; (2) that the orders violated substantive law, particularly Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, which grants the offended parties the right to recover civil damages arising from the crime; and (3) that, if filing fees were required, they should be charged only after recovery to avoid requiring payment when the accused is acquitted. On April 18, 1987 the respondent denied reconsideration as merely enforcing a procedural requirement.
The petition to the Supreme Court ensued by petition for review (Rule 45). The Court, however, found it unnecessary to resolve the factual-contentions because it had, by a Supreme Court Resolution dated July 7, 1988, amended Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The amended provision clarified that the civil action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action and e...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- When a civil action for recovery of damages is impliedly instituted with a criminal action under Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the offended party required to pay filing fees for actual damages at the time of filing?
- Does the July 7, 1988 amendment to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure apply retroactively to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)