Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 Cabaero vs. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, 18 April 1997

    Uploaded by

    jenniferthefifth
    24 views1 page
    Epifanio Ceralde alleged he was defrauded of 1.55 million pesos by Amado Cabaero and others. Ceralde filed an estafa case against Cabaero in regional trial court. Cabaero then filed an answer with counterclaim seeking damages from Ceralde. The trial court judge ruled counterclaims are not allowed in criminal cases. Cabaero appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused cannot file a counterclaim in a criminal case, but any related civil claims must be pursued separately.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Epifanio Ceralde alleged he was defrauded of 1.55 million pesos by Amado Cabaero and others. Ceralde filed an estafa case against Cabaero in regional trial court. Cabaero then filed an answer with counterclaim seeking damages from Ceralde. The trial court judge ruled counterclaims are not allowed in criminal cases. Cabaero appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused cannot file a counterclaim in a criminal case, but any related civil claims must be pursued separately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    24 views1 page

    5 Cabaero vs. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, 18 April 1997

    Uploaded by

    jenniferthefifth
    Epifanio Ceralde alleged he was defrauded of 1.55 million pesos by Amado Cabaero and others. Ceralde filed an estafa case against Cabaero in regional trial court. Cabaero then filed an answer with counterclaim seeking damages from Ceralde. The trial court judge ruled counterclaims are not allowed in criminal cases. Cabaero appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that under the rules of criminal procedure, an accused cannot file a counterclaim in a criminal case, but any related civil claims must be pursued separately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Cabaero vs. Cantos, G.R. No.

    102942, 18 April 1997

    FACTS:
    Epifanio Ceralde was wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud by AMADO F. CABAERO who
    induced and succeeded in inducing CERALDE to advance the total amount of P1,550,000.00 to be
    paid to M.C. Castro Construction, Co. representing the purchase price of six (6) parcels of land
    located in Pangasinan which the Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation, a joint business
    venture organized by accused CABAERO and CERALDE, purchased from the said company, with
    the understanding that the said amount would be returned to Ceralde as soon as the loan for
    P1,500,000.00 applied for by the said Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation with Solid
    Bank been approved by the bank. The Aqualand Ventures & Management Corporation by which
    falsely represented by CARMEN C. PEREZ to receive the check for P1,500,000.00 and encashed
    with Cabaero, which was intended to defraud, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the
    said amount to their own personal use and benefit.

    Ceralde filed a case of estafa in RTC of Manila, Branch IV but reraffled due to the judge is a relative
    by affinity of a nephew of the judge’s husband. It was then in Branch VII where the accused
    answered with counterclaims by which verbally moved that the answer with counterclaim be
    expunged from the records and/or be dismissed because the trial court had no jurisdiction over
    the answer with counterclaim for non-payment of the prescribed docket fees and compulsory
    counterclaim against complainant is barred for failure to file it before arraignment.

    Then Cabaero appealed in SC for the decision of Judge Alfredo Cantos questioning his decision,
    the CA denied the petition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the accused-petitioners who were charged with estafa, file an answer with counterclaim
    for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees and litigation expenses against the private
    complainant in the same criminal action.

    RULING:
    No. Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
    complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could
    have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.

    Here, Judge Cantos ruled that "this is a criminal case wherein the civil liability of the accused is
    impliedly instituted therein." This justification begs the question. Basically, that is the reason why
    petitioners herein filed their answer with counterclaim for, apparently, in hiring a private
    prosecutor, Private Respondent Ceralde intended to prosecute his civil claim together with the
    criminal action. Hence, as a protective measure, petitioners filed their counterclaim in the same
    case. Since under Section 1, Rule 111 26 of the Revised Rules of Court, the civil action which is
    deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action, if not waived or reserved, includes recovery
    of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
    Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

    You might also like