Malicious prosecution

Persons, against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, may file an action for damages for malicious prosecution. What constitutes malicious prosecution? This is answered in this case of Vencio and Dencio?

The case actually started some 22 years before in November 1971, when Auring their auntie, sought Vencio’s financial assistance to pay her loan with the bank, otherwise her residential house and lot with TCT No. T-37810 would be foreclosed. Vencio acceded, provided his auntie Auring would sell half of her lot consisting of 123 square meters. When Auring agreed to the arrangement, Vencio paid the loan and Auring executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over half of her property. Thus the lot was surveyed and separate titles were issued in the name of Auring (TCT 73252) and Vencio (TCT 73251). From then on Vencio paid the realty taxes of the portion registered in his name and Auring acknowledged his ownership over said portion, even requesting Vencio at one time to use his title as bond for the temporary release of her son who had been accused of malicious mischief. Also when Auring applied for another loan with another bank, she mortgaged only her portion thereby recognizing Vencio’s ownership of the other half.

But 22 years after she transferred one half of the land to Vencio, or in 1993, Auring filed a complaint of estafa against Vencio and his brother Dencio on the ground that she was deceived by them when she asked for financial assistance in 1971 to redeem her property. Auring alleged that Dencio asked her to sign a blank paper for their transaction which she did because of trust. Thereafter she heard nothing from Dencio. And when Nita her daughter confronted Dencio, she was informed that the title was still with the Register of Deeds (RD). But when Nita inquired from the RD, she was shocked to discover that the lot had already been divided into two. Auring averred that she never sold a portion of the property and never executed a deed of sale.

The estafa complaint was however dismissed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for lack of evidence. As a result of this dismissal, Vencio and Dencio sued their Auntie Auring for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution. Does the filing of the estafa complaint by Auring constitute malicious prosecution?

YES. To constitute malicious prosecution there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex or humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by a complaint knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Malicious prosecution in both criminal and civil cases requires the element of (1) malice and (2) absence of probable cause. These two elements are present in this case. There is reason to believe that malicious intent was behind the filing of the complaint for estafa against Vencio and Dencio. All the pieces of evidence particularly the Deed of Sale, the separate titles, the tax declarations indicate that Auring had long acknowledged Vencio’s ownership of half of the property. Furthermore, it was only in 1993 when Auring decided to file the estafa complaint. If she honestly believed that she still owned the entire property it would not have taken her 22 years to question Vencio’s ownership of half of the property. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the circumstances is that Auring knew all along the she was no longer the owner of Vencio’s portion after having sold to him way back in 1971 clearly signifying that she was impelled by malice and avarice in bringing the unfounded action. That there was no probable cause at all is shown by the dismissal of the charges by the prosecutor’s office. So Auring and her children are liable for P150,000 moral damages, P30,000 exemplary damages and P20,000 attorney’s fees (Yasona etc. vs. De Ramos G.R. 156339 October 6, 2004).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]