G.R. No. 78657-60 - People vs. Escano, Jr.

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 before the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City.
These cases were consolidated for a joint trial and assigned to Hon. Francisco H. Escano, Jr. of Branch II, Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City.

The offended parties sought to enforce their civil liabilities against the accused by way of actual damages.
In view of this, the respondent judge ordered the clerk of court to require the payment of the corresponding filing fees as mandated by paragraph 2, Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

On April 8, 1987, the respondent judge directed the clerk to explain in writing why his previous order requiring the filing fees could not be complied with.
Subsequently, the prosecuting fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration with the following arguments:

The order effectively rendered ineffective the provision in paragraph 1, Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which stipulates the automatic institution of the civil action with the criminal action unless specific reservations or separate actions are made.
The order was alleged to be in violation of substantive law, particularly Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, which grants the offended parties the right to recover damages stemming directly from the commission of the crime (including restitution, reparation for damage, and indemnification for consequential damages).
It was contended that if filing fees were applicable, they should be charged only after the offended parties recovered their claims; otherwise, they might end up paying for nothing should the accused be acquitted or exonerated.

On April 18, 1987, the respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration, maintaining that his order was simply enforcing a procedural requirement of the law.
Later, the Supreme Court, through its Resolution dated July 7, 1988, amended Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, clarifying the institution of criminal and civil actions:

The amendment provided that the civil action for recovery of civil liabilities is automatically instituted with the criminal action, except if the offended party waives it, reserves the right to file it separately, or has filed it separately prior to the criminal action.
Importantly, it clarified that when the civil action is instituted alongside the criminal action, the actual damages claimed by the offended parties are not included in the computation of the filing fees.
Filing fees would only be required for damages other than actual damages (i.e., moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages), or, if not so alleged, would constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Since this amendment was curative in nature, it applied retroactively and affected pending litigations, including the case at bar.

Whether the filing fees imposed by the respondent judge on the offended parties, who were claiming only actual damages, were proper under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as modified by subsequent amendments.
Whether the imposition of filing fees in such a situation violated the offensive parties' substantive rights under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the automatic institution of the civil action with the criminal action is undermined by requiring the payment of filing fees for claims of actual damages.