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