Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez

Magbanua v. Junsay
Feb 12, 2007
G.R. No. 132659
Digest By: Xavier A. Cortez
Malicious Prosecution; Words and Phrases; The term malicious
prosecution has been defined as An action for damages brought by one
against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding
has been instituted maliciously and without probably cause, after the
termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the
defendant therein. The term, while ordinarily referring to criminal actions,
have been expanded into unfounded civil suits.
Same; the gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a complain
based on the wrong provisions of law, but the deliberate initiation of an
action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless. The
four elements are as follows:
(1)The prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the
prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement;
(2)The criminal action finally ended with an acquittal;
(3)In bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause;
(4)The prosecution was impelled by legal malice an improper or
sinister motive.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:
1.) RTC Dismiss for lack of elements
2.) CA - Dismiss the appeal for lack of merit
3.) SC Affirm in toto the decision of the CA
FACTS:
Rosemarie Magbanua is a domestic helper of herein respondent, Pilar
Junsay, who is a medical doctor. One fateful day, a robbery occurred at the
residence of herein respondent. The robbery was consummated with the
Page 1 of 6

Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez
use of force on things there was a hole made on the lower left corner of
the kitchen door which enabled entry of the robbers. The robbery resulted
in the loss of P29, 800 worth of jewellery and other items. A case was filed
against Magbanua and two other accused alleging that Magbanua
conspired with the two individuals in order to consummate the robbery. The
two individuals were at large while only Magbanua was submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court for prosecution.
In finding probable cause, the prosecutor submitted the case for trial to the
RTC. Probable cause was based on the testimony of the complainants, the
report of the police on the investigation conducted, and the submitted
voluntary admission allegedly by Magbanua. The voluntary admission
stated that Magbanua accepted the jewellery as part of her share, and that
she did accede to the other two accused in compromising the kitchen door
so that they would have access and break entry into the home.
In the trial, it was adjudged that the confession was taken under duress
because Magbanua was proven to be maltreated by the police officers in
efforts to extract a confession. Also, the testimonies were not credible for
being inconsistent with the report of the police. The testimony states that in
the bag of the accused were found a gold necklace the supposed share
of hers from the spoils of the robbery, but the police report failed to state
this. Surely, the police would have searched the papers and effects of the
accused in this case. Due to this inconsistency, the RTC acquitted
Magbanua for lack of evidence and also stating that there was no prima
facie case of robbery here as against her.
Consequently, Magbanua filed a case for malicious prosecution and
damages against herein respondent, the same individual who was the
complainant in the case for robbery against her. She alleged that she was
maltreated by the policemen in extracting a confession from her and this
was the sole reason why the prosecutor passed the case for submission to
the court. She alleged that she suffered pain, suffering, humiliation, and
furthermore, since she was a minor, her father represented her in court.
She also alleged that her father lost his occupation due to the whole fiasco.
She was claiming damages as well from the respondent and the two
Page 2 of 6

Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez
policemen, herein private respondent, who implemented the investigation in
a brazen manner. She further alleged that Junsay took advantage of her
status in society as a medical doctor and used her influence in filing a case
against Magbanua.
The evidence she submitted were medical certificates proving her physical
injuries, and the order of the PNP disciplinary arm, the NAPOLCOM,
suspending the two policemen for breaking protocol and extracting a
confession with the use of force, intimidation, and violence on a minor, who,
nonetheless is uneducated, from the province, and was not provided any
guidance and support.
The defendants herein denied any liability. Junsay stated that she said that
she had no part in the investigation, while the policemen stated that they
submitted the case to the prosecutor as part of their duty.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not there is a case of malicious prosecution; and
2.) Whether or not Magbanua is entitled to damages for malicious
prosecution; and
3.) Whether or not Magbanua is entitled to damages for maltreatment
and injuries.
HELD:
1.) NO lack of elements for malicious prosecution
2.) NO There can be no damages for malicious prosecution if malicious
prosecution does not exist.
3.) NO Deemed not included in the case of malicious prosecution filed
by Magbanua.

RATIONIZATION:

Page 3 of 6

Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez
There is no case for malicious prosecution here for lack of elements. The
first two elements of malicious prosecution in this case are present in that
the prosecution did occur and the accused was acquitted. As to the
presence of probable cause, the court adjudicated that it did in fact exist,
thus the third elementis wanting. The fact that the prosecutor filed the
information in court is evidence of this. The issue as to whether or not the
confession is admissible is an evidentiary issue, and is not considered in
the preliminary investigation. The prosecutor did not err in submitting the
case for trial, thus there are no flaws in his finding of probable cause with
the evidence submitted to him. It must be remembered that the
determination of probable cause is based on opinion and reasonable belief,
and does not require an inquiry into whether or not there was sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction.
The last element is also wanting. The gravamen of malicious prosecution is
the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges
were false and groundless. The gravamen is not present here for failure to
prove malice on the part of both the policemen and Junsay. There was no
evidence offered to prove that there existed the any sinister motive.
First, Junsay did not allege that Magbanua is the perpetrator of the crime.
She merely reported the incident to the police. Secondly, the police have
the duty to conduct an investigation and there is no impropriety to their
response to the call of a reported robbery. Lastly, when the police submitted
the report to the prosecutor, they also included two other accused and not
merely Magbanua. Such submission for filing in court is also the duty of
policemen which they cannot be faulted for. The filing of the case against
three individuals is also indicative that the prosecution was not focused
merely on vexing or humiliating Magbanua, but was filed as a legitimate
case, subsequent to the commission of the crime of robbery. One cannot
be faulted for legitimately submitting a case to the court for adjudication.
There was also no evidence to prove that there was bad blood between
Magbanua and her employer, as well as between her and the investigating
policemen. There was no motive for any of them to file maliciously the case
of robbery against Magbanua.
Page 4 of 6

Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez
In sum, there is no malicious prosecution in this case because there
was a definitive finding of probable cause by the prosecutor, as
assisted by the investigation done by the policemen, which was
prompted by a legitimate report of robbery by Junsay. There also
exists no legal malice on the part of the respondents in this case for
lack of proof of any ill motive or sinister design to humiliate and vex
Magbanua.
Damages are also wanting because the RTC rules that the damages sued
for correspond to malicious prosecution, and not the maltreatment which
resulted in Magbanuas injuries. Also, even if it were being sued for, the
right to file an action for damages had prescribed, the case being filed 4
years and 8 months from the act. Pursuant to Article 1146 of the NCC,
actions for damages prescribe after 4 years.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is denied, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals, AFFIRMED.

Page 5 of 6

Digest; Torts and Damages; Malicious Prosecution

Prepared By: Xavier Ma. Antonio A. Cortez

Page 6 of 6