166 Drilon vs.

CA

G.R. No. 107019 March 20, 1997

DOCTRINE

The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are found in Articles
19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219(8). In order for such suit to prosper, the plaintiff
must prove: (1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself
the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal, (2) that in bringing the
action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated
or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive.

FACTS

• General de Villa was then the Chief of Staff of the AFP. He wrote a letter to Sec of Justice
Drilon requesting an investigation of several people for their participation in the failed Dec 1989
coup d'etat.

• The letter was based on the affidavit of some AFP officials (Brig. Gen. Galido, Capt. Mapalo,
Col. Mamorno, Col. Figueroa, and Maj. Sebastian).

• Gen. de Villa's letter was referred for preliminary inquiry to the Special Composite Team of
Prosecutors created pursuant to DOJ Order No. 5.

• Petitioner, Asst. Chief Prosecutor Trampe, the Team Leader, found sufficient basis to continue
the inquiry. He issued a subpoena to the people named in the letter and assigned the case for
preliminary investigation to a panel of investigators composed of the other petitioners (Prosecs
Arizala, Abesamis, and Solis).

• This resolution was the basis for the filing of an Information charged against private
respondent Adaza with rebellion with murder and frustrated.

• Feeling aggrieved, Adaza files a complaint for damages saying that the prosecutors engaged
“in a deliberate, willful and malicious experimentation by filing” those charges against him.
Adaza claims that those prosecutors knew that such crime did not exist in the statute books.

• The prosecutors filed a Motion to Dismiss Adaza’s complaint saying that the complaint “states
no actionable wrong constituting a valid cause of action.”

• CA dismissed.

• Petitioner prosecutors filed in the SC for a review of the case. SC denied.

• After more than a year, SC reinstated the petition and granted a TRO ordering the RTC Judge
from proceeding with the case against the prosecutors.

ISSUES
• Did Adaza’s complaint against the prosecutors state a cause of action? Should it have been
dismissed from the start?

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

Re: Adaza’s claim that his claim was not a suit for malicious prosecution

 Adaza says that his claim in the RTC was a suit for damages based on tort because of
the prosecutors’ “malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office” and some
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was not a suit for malicious
prosecution.
 SC does not agree. The complaint was for malicious prosecution against the petitioner
prosecutors for their filing of the charge of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder.
 This latest argument as to the nature of his cause of action is only being raised for the
first time on appeal. Nowhere in his complaint in the RTC did Adaza say that his action is
one based on tort or The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. A change of theory
cannot be allowed.
 When a party adopts a certain theory in the LC, he will not be permitted to change his
theory on appeal, because to permit him would not only be “unfair to the other party but
it would also be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.”

Re: Discussion on Malicious Prosecution

 “Malicious prosecution” has been defined in many ways.

 In American jurisdiction: Malicious prosecution is one begun in malice without probable
cause to believe the charges can be sustained.
 Malicious prosecution is when a case is instituted with intention of injuring defendant and
without probable cause, and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted.
 In Philippine jurisdiction: An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and
without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other
proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
 The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, regularly, for the mere
purpose of vexation or injury.
 The statutory basis for a civil action for malicious prosecution: found in NCC on Human
Relations and on damages: Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217 and 2219 (8).
 To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
 The mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one
liable for malicious prosecution.
 For malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 3 elements:
1) For malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 3 elements:
2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause;
 3) hat the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or
sinister motive.
 All requisites must concur.
 Judging from the complaint of Adaza, none of the requisites were alleged, and so,
complaint is dismissible for failure to state a cause of action.

Re: First element: Claim that criminal case has already been terminated

 Nothing in the records shows, and the complaint does not allege, that that the criminal
case filed, has been finally terminated and the accused Adaza was acquitted.
 What only appears is that Adaza has been discharged on a writ of habeas corpus and
granted bail.
 This is not considered the termination of the action contemplated under Philippine
jurisdiction to warrant the institution of a malicious prosecution suit against those
responsible for the filing of the information against him.

Re: Second element: Prosecutor acted without probable cause

 The complaint does not make any allegation that the prosecution acted without probable
cause in filing the criminal information.
 “Probable cause” is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
 A suit for malicious prosecution will lie only when a legal prosecution has been carried
on without probable cause.
 The reason for this rule is because:
 It would be a very great discouragement to public justice, if prosecutors, who had
tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their indictment
miscarried.
 The decision to prosecution was fully justified in an 18-page Resolution.
 Although the prosecutors were fully aware of the prevailing jurisprudence in People v.
Hernandez, which proscribes the complexing of murder and other common crimes with
rebellion, they were of the honest conviction that the Hernandez Case can be
differentiated from the present case. They argued:
 In the Hernandez case, the common crimes were found have been committed as
a necessary means to commit rebellion, or in furtherance.
 And so, the fiscal in Hernandez filed an information for rebellion alleging those
common crimes as a necessary means of committing the offense charged under
the second part of RPC 48.
 However, in this case, we do not apply the Hernandez ruling because the crimes
of murder and frustrated murder were unnecessary to commit rebellion.
 Hence, the applicable provision is the first part of RPC 48.
 While in Enrile v. Salazar, the issue of whether or not the Hernandez doctrine is still
good law arose, in a 10-3 vote, three justices felt the need to re-study the Hernandez
ruling in light of present-day developments.
  Chief Justice Fernan wrote a dissenting opinion saying:
 The Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as an all-embracing authority
for the rule that all common crimes committed on the occasion, or in furtherance
of, or in connection with, rebellion are absorbed.

 The Hernandez doctrine has served the purpose for which it was applied by the
Court in 1956 during the communist-inspired rebellion of the Huks

 The doctrine was good law then, but I believe that there is a certain aspect of
the Hernandez doctrine that needs clarification.

 See, not even the SC was all in agreement in debuking the theory of the prosecutors in
this case.
 A doubtful question of law may become the basis of good faith and, in this regard, the
law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith and regularity in
the performance of official duties.
 Any person who seeks to establish otherwise has the burden of proving bad faith or ill-
motive.
 Here, since the prosecutors were of the honest conviction that there was probable
cause and since Adaza himself, did not allege in his complaint lack of probable cause,
SC finds that the prosecutors cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.

Re: Third requirement: Prosecution was impelled by legal malice

 The presence of probable cause signifies the absence of malice.

 It is evident that the prosecutors were not motivated by malicious.

In Conclusion:

 The complaint filed by Adaza against the prosecutors does not allege facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action for malicious prosecution.
 Lack of cause of action, as a ground for a motion to dismiss must appear on the face of
the complaint itself, meaning that it must be determined from the allegations of the
complaint and from none other.
 The infirmity of the complaint in this regard is only too obvious to have escaped
respondent judge's attention.
 Paragraph 14 of the complaint stating: “The malicious prosecution, nay persecution, of
plaintiff for a non-existent crime had severely injured and besmirched plaintiff's name…”
is a conclusion of law and is not an averment or allegation of ultimate facts.

Petition is granted.