G.R. No. 102942 – 338 Phil. 105 – 271 SCRA 391 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Answer with Counterclaim in Criminal Case Not Allowed
In 1991, Amado Cabaero and one other was sued for estafa by Epifanio Ceralde. After Cabaero was arraigned, he filed an Answer with Counterclaim as it was his defense that Ceralde’s filing of the said criminal complaint was malicious and baseless. It was with a counterclaim because Cabaero invoked he incurred damages by reason of such malicious filing.
Ceralde then moved to have the Answer with Counterclaim be expunged from the records. Judge Alfredo Cantos granted Ceralde’s motion. Cabaero filed a petition for certiorari under RUle 65 against Judge Cantos.
ISSUE: Whether or not an Answer in a criminal case may have a counterclaim.
HELD: No. Cabaero was invoking the old case of Javier vs IAC which declared that a counterclaim in a criminal case is proper to avoid multiplicity of suits and that the best forum to settle the counterclaim arising from the filing of the criminal case is the same court hearing the criminal case.
However, in the deliberation of this case, the members of the SC raised several observations regarding the soundness of the Javier case until the SC arrived at a conclusion that the decision in Javier only came about because of a lack of a clear cut rule in the 1985 Rules of Court.
The real problem lies in the absence of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary consequences and implications thereof. For this reason, the counter-claim of the accused cannot be tried together with the criminal case because it will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
Note: This was a 1997 case. In December 2000, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective. Section 1, Rule 111 thereof made it finally clear that “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.”
