February 1948 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > February 1948 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-538 February 25, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO OLAVIDES ET AL.
080 Phil 280:
080 Phil 280:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-538. February 25, 1948.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAURICIO OLAVIDES ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
First Assistant Solicitor General Jose B. L. Reyes and Solicitor Francisco Carreon for Appellant.
Dominador P. Padilla for private prosecution.
Luntuk & Luntuk for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL; APPEAL BY OFFENDED PARTY; CIVIL ACTION, EFFECT OF. — Where the offended party has filed a civil action arising from the same act alleged in the information, he cannot appeal from the order dismissing the information.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal by the private prosecution from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissing, upon motion of the attorneys for the accused, an information for usurpation of real property, on the ground that the allegation in said information that the accused committed the act complained of under a pretension of ownership, constitutes a legal defense or justification.
It appearing that the offended party has filed a civil action arising from the same act alleged in the information, he "has no right to intervene in the prosecution of this case, and consequently can not appeal from the order of the court dismissing the information." (People v. Velez, L-1219, February 25, 1947, 44 Off. Gaz., 1811.)
The present appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed, with costs against the offended party. So ordered.
Hilado, Briones and Tuason, JJ., concur.
PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We are of the opinion that the lower court acted correctly in dismissing the information. The allegation therein that the usurpation of real property attributed to the accused was committed "under pretension of ownership" divests the act of criminal nature. We concur in the dismissal of the appeal on this sole ground.
As regards the personality of the offended party to intervene in the criminal case, we still maintain that the majority opinion in People v. Velez, L-1219, is erroneous and contrary to law, as we have shown in our written opinion in said case.
It appearing that the offended party has filed a civil action arising from the same act alleged in the information, he "has no right to intervene in the prosecution of this case, and consequently can not appeal from the order of the court dismissing the information." (People v. Velez, L-1219, February 25, 1947, 44 Off. Gaz., 1811.)
The present appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed, with costs against the offended party. So ordered.
Hilado, Briones and Tuason, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We are of the opinion that the lower court acted correctly in dismissing the information. The allegation therein that the usurpation of real property attributed to the accused was committed "under pretension of ownership" divests the act of criminal nature. We concur in the dismissal of the appeal on this sole ground.
As regards the personality of the offended party to intervene in the criminal case, we still maintain that the majority opinion in People v. Velez, L-1219, is erroneous and contrary to law, as we have shown in our written opinion in said case.
