Case Summary (G.R. No. 78657-60)
Relevant Dates
The initial filing by the City Fiscal of Mandaue City occurred on January 2, 1986, with a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecuting fiscal. The respondent judge issued an explanation directive on April 8, 1987, and denied the motion for reconsideration on April 18, 1987. Notably, the Supreme Court amendment affecting the case was adopted on July 7, 1988.
Applicable Law
The relevant legal framework for this case includes the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as the amendments to Rule 111 adopted by the Supreme Court in July 1988. These legal provisions address the procedural aspects of civil actions arising from criminal proceedings and the corresponding filing fees.
Procedural Requirement of Filing Fees
The respondent judge, in adherence to Section 1, paragraph 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, required the offended parties in the Estafa cases to pay filing fees associated with their claims for civil liability against the accused. This requirement prompted a motion for reconsideration from the prosecuting fiscal, who contended that the filing fees for civil actions were unreasonably enforced prior to the determination of guilt or innocence.
Denial of Motion for Reconsideration
The respondent judge’s refusal to grant the motion for reconsideration was predicated on his belief that imposing filing fees was a lawful procedural requirement. He maintained that the offended parties needed to comply with the order, without considering the implication of their rights under the Revised Penal Code, particularly the right to recover damages directly arising from the commission of the alleged crime.
Amendment of Relevant Rules
The case underwent a significant development due to the Supreme Court’s amendment to Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. This amendment clarified that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action is impliedly instituted unless specific waivers or reservations are made. Crucially, the amendment states that filing fees should not be required for actual damages claimed alongside the criminal action, but only for other forms of damages like moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages.
Retroactive Application of the Amendment
The Supreme Court determined that the amendment serves as a curative statute, meaning its provisions apply retroactively. Thus, the amendment impacts ong
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 78657-60)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition filed by the People of the Philippines against Hon. Francisco H. Escano, Jr., presiding judge of Branch II, Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City.
- The petition arose from four separate criminal informations for Estafa against Carlos Calianga, Romulo Pepito, and Jun Lozano, filed by the City Fiscal of Mandaue City on January 2, 1986.
- The criminal cases were consolidated for a joint trial.
Procedural History
- The respondent judge directed the clerk of court to require the offended parties to pay filing fees for enforcing civil liabilities against the accused, citing the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- The specific provision mandated that when offended parties seek to enforce civil liability through actual damages, they must pay corresponding filing fees.
- On April 8, 1987, the judge sought an explanation from the clerk of court regarding the compliance with his order.
Motion for Reconsideration
- The prosecuting fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration against the judge's orders, arguing several points:
- The order undermined the automatic institution of civil ac