Facts:
On February 27, 2000, Alberto Mina, Nilo Jay Mina and Ferdinand Caasi were
arrested by the petitioners-police officers along an alley in Pasay City. They
were charged with violation of City Ordinance No. 265 (Drinking Liquor in
Public Places). Those arrested, then, filed a civil case against the
petitioners-police men for damages, alleging that their arrest was only by
inducement and unjustifiable accusations of Ferdinand and Mariano Cruz.
Subsequently, criminal complaints were also
filed against the petitioners before the City Prosecution Office (CPO) and the
Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) for Unlawful Arrest and Violation of R.A.
No. 7438 (Act Defining Rights of Person Under Custodial Investigation). The CPO
dismissed the case for lack of merit while the Ombudsman, in its Joint
Resolution dated October 13, 2000,[5] dismissed both complaints for lack of
probable cause, but recommended the filing of 3 corresponding criminal informations
for Violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. After the criminal
informations for Violation of R.A. No. 3019 were filed, the cases were remanded
to the CPO for the conduct of the new preliminary investigation on motion of
the accused.
On July 27, 2001, the CPO recommended the dismissal of the cases for lack of
merit. While it may be argued that the Cruzes may have been biased, there
appeared to be a semblance of truth to their report when private respondents
were arrested by the police officers. Besides, the subsequent filing of the
corresponding information after the inquest investigation for a violation of a
city ordinance, is per se an imprimatur of the legality of their
arrest.
On
August 29, 2001, the Ombudsman recommended the approval of the CPO Resolution.
Meanwhile, the complainants were found guilty by the MeTC for Violation of City
Ordinance No. 265.Their conviction was affirmed by the RTC, Branch 114, Pasay
City. Complainants’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Civil Case No. 00-0089, on the other hand, proceeded with the trial with the
complainants presenting their first witness. Before cross-examination,
Ferdinand A. Cruz, one of the petitioners, filed his Motion to Dismiss,
alleging therein that it is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the
civil case and not the RTC; and that conformably to Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249,
the complainants are barred from filing a separate and independent civil
action.
The motion to dismiss was denied invoking Article 269 of the Revised Penal
Code, the crime of “unlawful arrest” is punishable by arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos which, under R.A. No. 7691, falls within the
jurisdiction of appropriate Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court,
as the case may be, contrary to the movant’s claim that it was the
Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the ancillary action for
damages.
Public respondent further explained that had there been a criminal case for
unlawful arrest filed before the MeTC, the civil case for damages should have
been transferred to it, but, there was none. She also stated that the movant
failed to attach certified copies of resolutions/orders dismissing the
complaint for unlawful arrest. Thus, she could not simply rely on bare
assertions or conjectures but must resolve the issues raised based on competent
proof.
Petitioner Ferdinand Cruz then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied in the assailed July 12, 2006 Order. Public respondent wrote that the
situation was not within the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249. The
provision suggests of two (2) situations.
First, a criminal action has been instituted before the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts after the requisite preliminary investigation, and the
corresponding civil liability must be simultaneously instituted with it.
Second, the civil case, filed ahead of the criminal case, is still pending upon
the filing of the criminal action, in which case, the civil case should be
transferred to the court trying the criminal case for consolidation and joint
determination.
Considering the circumstances surrounding the case, the public respondent
opined that the case did not fall in any of the two cited situations.
Aggrieved, petitioners come before this Court. While they admit that they
are aware of the principle of the hierarchy of the courts, they opted to
directly appeal before this Court considering that the issue to be resolved
entails an interpretation of Section 4, R.A. No. 8249, otherwise known as the
“Sandiganbayan Act,”
Issue:
Whether or not the regional trial court or any other courts has the
jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 00-0089 given the mandatory simultaneous
institution and joint determination of a civil liability with the criminal
action and the express prohibition to file the said civil action separately
from the criminal action as provided for under Sec. 4 of R.A. 8249.
Held: Yes.
In their Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, petitioners
contend that the Regional Trial Court or any other court no has jurisdiction to
try Civil Case No. 00-00089 given that in cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan,
there is a mandatory simultaneous institution and joint determination of the
civil liability with the criminal action and the express prohibition to file
the said civil action separately from the criminal action as provided under
Section 4 of R.A. 8249. In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court ruled
that the subject civil case (i.e., Civil Case No. 00-00089) does not fall
within the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.
Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 contemplates only two (2) situations and these were
correctly pointed out by the public respondent as follows: First, a criminal
action has been instituted before the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts
after the requisite preliminary investigation, and the corresponding civil
liability must be simultaneously instituted with it; and second, the civil case,
filed ahead of the criminal case, is still pending when the criminal action was
filed, in which case, the civil case should be transferred to the court trying
the criminal case for consolidation and joint determination. Evidently, Section
4 of R.A. No. 8249 finds no application in this case since no criminal action
has been filed before the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court. Thus, there
is no appropriate court to which the subject civil case can be transferred or
consolidated as mandated by the said provision.
It is also illogical to consider the civil case as abandoned simply because the
criminal cases against petitioners were dismissed at the preliminary stage. A
reading of the latter part of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8294 suggests that the
civil case will only be considered abandoned if there is a pending criminal
case and the civil case was not transferred to the court trying the criminal
case for joint determination. The criminal charges against petitioners might
have been dismissed at the preliminary stage for lack of probable cause, but it
does not mean that the civil case instituted prior to the filing of the
criminal complaints is already baseless as the complainants can prove their
cause of action in the civil case by mere preponderance of evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment