Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > September 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19820 September 20, 1965 - PETRA T. ALMENDRA, ET., AL. v. ELEODORO G. ALVERO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19820. September 20, 1965.]

PETRA T. ALMENDRA and TOMAS ALMENDRA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELEODORO G. ALVERO, Defendant-Appellee.

Beltran & Beltran and Teodoro R. Agosto, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Eleodoro G. Alvero in his own behalf as Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; MALICE ESSENTIAL IN MAKING OUT A CASE. — Appellee fenced his lot in line with the community development. Appellant cut the posts thereof, and then bodily moved the fence and attached it to new posts which she had planted eight meters away from the original site. As a result, appellee filed two separate criminal charges against appellant, one for altering boundaries and another for malicious mischief, both of which were dismissed. Appellant then filed against appellee a complaint for malicious prosecution. Held: The court a quo correctly dismissed the complaint for malicious prosecution. The facts which thus presented themselves to appellee were such as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person charged was guilty of the crimes for which he was being prosecuted. This is the essence of probable cause which eliminates the element of malice essential in making out a case of malicious prosecution.

2. ID.; ID.; SLANDEROUS WORD INCIDENTAL TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. — Appellant claimed that appellee uttered slanderous words against her while she was being brought to the municipal jail. In her complaint, however, she did not claim for damages by reason of that specific act of slander. Clearly, the allegedly slanderous words were not intended to embody a different cause of action such as would have justified further proceedings regardless of the insufficiency of the allegations concerning the malicious prosecution.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Petra T. Almendra and her husband Tomas Almendra appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing their complaint for malicious prosecution on the ground of its insufficiency to state a cause of action.

Whether or not a complaint is sufficient must be determined from its allegations alone, matters not alleged being improper for consideration. 1 The complaint in this case alleges that on July 1, 1959, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Abuyog, Leyte, Eleodoro G. Alvero filed against Petra T. Almendra (whose maiden name is Petra A. Tupa) and her niece Loreta Almendra two separate criminal charges, one for altering boundaries and another for malicious mischief, both of which were dismissed, and that in filing said charges Alvero was moved by malice because he knew that the accusations were false.

The averments of malice however, are negated by the facts found by the Justice of the Peace Court and stated in the orders of dismissal which respectively read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Perusing the motion for dismissal and the opposition in relation to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court is of the opinion and so holds, that the motion for dismissal is tenable. The circumstances of malice and deliberate intent to inflict the injury to the property of the complainant is lacking. In People v. Gerale, Et Al., 4 Phil. 218, it was held: That the crime of damage to property is not determined solely by the mere act of inflicting injury upon the property of a third person, but it must be shown that the act had for its object the injury of property merely for the sake of damaging it, without this circumstance (intention) of the culprit cannot be established. It was proven by the prosecution, that the accused cut to the level ground the posts of the fence of the complainant. Malice on this destruction was negated by the admission of the witnesses for the prosecution that the accused provided themselves with seven (7) posts, planted the posts the accused carried to a distance of eight meters from the original fence and nailed the fence to the posts planted by the accused. Malicious intent of the above-entitled case is lacking, for actually the fence was only removed as alleged in the complaint." (Annex C)

"Perusing the motion for dismissal and the opposition, the Court is of the opinion and so holds, that the motion for dismissal is tenable. It is true that the fence is owned by the complaining witness. The complaining witness fenced his lot in line with the community development and so that his pigs would not be astray. But it was not contended that the fence allegedly altered by the accused, constitutes the boundary of the land between Petra A. Tupa and the complainant. Natividad Mata, a witness for the prosecution, did not tell the court that the fence constitutes the boundary of the land between Petra A. Tupa and the complainant. Antonio Calan, allegedly the principal witness for the prosecution, testified that he does not know the boundary of the lands of Petra A. Tupa, the other accused and the complainant." (Annex D)

The circumstances on which herein appellee acted were: He was the owner of the fence. Appellant Petra T. Almendra cut the posts thereof, and then bodily moved the fence and attached it to new posts which she had planted eight meters away from the original site. These circumstances reasonably persuaded appellee that said appellant, in cutting the posts, 2 committed the offense of malicious mischief, 3 and in removing the fence from its location and placing it eight meters away likewise committed the offense of altering boundary marks. 4 The facts which thus presented themselves to appellee were such as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person charged was guilty of the crimes for which he was being prosecuted. This is the essence of probable cause, which eliminates the element of malice essential in making out a case of malicious prosecution. 5

Appellants further contend that aside from their allegations of malicious prosecution they have another cause of action embodied in paragraph 3 of the complaint, which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That because of these two sworn complaints (Annexes A and B) that were personally signed and filed by the herein defendant against the herein Petra T. Almendra, and immediately after the warrant of arrest issued for the arrest of the latter, the said defendant personally and actually helped the arresting policeman of Abuyog, Leyte in personally arresting the herein plaintiff Petra T. Almendra in front of the house of the latter’s mother at Buntay Abuyog, Leyte and defendant kept on shouting, when the herein plaintiff Petra T. Almendra was already arrested in public, that the herein plaintiff Petra T. Almendra is a criminal and should be jailed and at the same time cursing the herein plaintiff Petra T. Almendra while the latter was being brought to the Municipal jail of Abuyog, Leyte."cralaw virtua1aw library

The contention is untenable. The allegedly slanderous words referred to were merely incidental to the supposed malicious prosecution. They clearly were not intended to embody a different cause of action, for in appellants’ complaint there is no claim for damages by reason of that specific act of slander. Even in their motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal they did not say that the averments in paragraph 3 constituted in themselves a cause of action such as would have justified further proceedings regardless of the insufficiency of the allegations concerning the malicious prosecution.

The appealed order is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Reinares v. Arrastria, 115 Phil. 726; Mindanao Realty Corporation v. Kintanar, 116 Phil. 1130.

2. According to the complaint for malicious mischief coconut seedlings were hung on the fence and these were also destroyed when Petra T. Almendra cut off the posts of the fence.

3. Malicious mischief is the crime committed by any person who shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage which does not constitute arson (Article 327, Revised Penal Code).

4. The crime of altering of boundaries or landmarks is committed by any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same (Article 313, Revised Penal Code).

5. Buchanan v. Vda. de Esteben, 32 Phil. 363.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22074 September 6, 1965 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO., INC. v. CIR

  • G.R. No. L-24761 September 7, 1965 - LEON G. MAQUERA v. JUAN BORRA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20340 September 10, 1965 - PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET., AL. v. SANCHO R. JACINTO

  • G.R. No. L-18652 September 14, 1965 - AMADO C. TIGNO v. SILVESTRE PINGOL, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20376-77 September 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR VALES Y VICTA

  • G.R. No. L-20941 September 17, 1965 - FELIX ONGOCO, ET., AL. v. JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATAAN

  • G.R. No. L-21496 September 17, 1965 - ACAY BALBALIO, ET., AL. v. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES IGNACIO B.

    GALABAN and MAGDALENA BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17466 September 18, 1965 - FAUSTINA JAMISOLA VDA. DE CALIBO, ET., AL. v. TIBURCIO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. L-24649 September 18, 1965 - BIENVENIDO A. CASTILLO v. JOSE M. VILLARAMA

  • G.R. No. L-16631 September 20, 1965 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILS. v. MANUEL S. OZARRAGA

  • G.R. No. L-18384 September 20, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HEIRS OF CESAR JALANDONI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19526 September 20, 1965 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. HILARION OLIVAR, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19820 September 20, 1965 - PETRA T. ALMENDRA, ET., AL. v. ELEODORO G. ALVERO

  • G.R. No. L-21146 September 20, 1965 - RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC. v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-23080 October 30, 1965 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18073-75 September 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SIMBAJON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18343 September 30, 1965 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. EMILIO A. GANCAYCO

  • G.R. No. L-18552 September 30, 1965 - TUASON & LEGARDA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20460 September 30, 1965 - BOMBAY DEPARTMENT STORE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21152 September 30, 1965 - COTO LABOR UNION (NLU) v. JOSE C. ESPINAS, ET AL.