Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26760)
Facts:
Joaquina Ventura, assisted by her husband, Jose Ventura, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Eusebio Bernabe, defendant-appellee, G.R. No. L-26760. April 30, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court (Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur).Appellant Joaquina Ventura was criminally charged by Eusebio Bernabe with falsification of a private document (Art. 172(2), Revised Penal Code) arising from an alleged forged letter used to induce Bernabe to issue a P350 check. The information was filed with the fiscal and prosecuted as Criminal Case No. 9003 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Caloocan City Branch. After trial the CFI acquitted Ventura, finding her testimony more credible and noting unexplained circumstances in Bernabe’s evidence; the court did not, however, expressly declare the accusation false nor order prosecution of the complaining witness.
After the acquittal, appellants filed Civil Case No. C-628 in the same CFI, seeking damages for malicious prosecution (P30,000 moral; P10,000 exemplary; plus actual damages and attorneys’ fees), alleging Bernabe had filed and prosecuted the criminal charge with malice and without probable cause. Bernabe moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint “states no cause of action,” relying on older Supreme Court authorities that, under the former Article 326 of the old Penal Code, required a judicial declaration of falsity (or an order to proceed against the accuser) as prerequisite to civil liability for false accusation; the respondent argued the acquittal here rested on insufficiency of proof rather than a finding of falsity.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the civil complaint, citing cases such as Grattage v. Standard Fuel Co., Gonzales Quiros v. Palanca Tan Guinlay, Herrera v. Escoto, Eclarin v. Municipality of Tayabas and U.S. v. Barrera, which it read to require the extinct Article 326 co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err, as a matter of law and procedure, in dismissing the civil complaint for malicious prosecution for “stating no cause of action”?
- Is the old Article 326 requirement (that an acquitting judgment must declare the accusation false or order prosecution of the accuser) applicable under the Revised Penal Code or otherwise required for a civil action for malicious prosecution?
- Does the complaint as pleaded state a cause of action for malicious prosecution under Articles 2219, 21 and 2176 of the Civil Code (and related law), or is a prior finding of probable cause by...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)