GR 107019; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107019 March 20, 1997
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, GREGORIO A. ARIZALA, CESAR M. SOLIS and FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GEORGE C. MACLI-ING, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and HOMOBONO ADAZA, respondents.
FACTS
The Department of Justice, through petitioners who were prosecutors, conducted a preliminary investigation based on a military complaint against respondent Homobono Adaza for his alleged participation in a failed coup d’etat. The panel of prosecutors found probable cause and recommended the filing of an Information for the complex crime of “rebellion with murder and frustrated murder” against Adaza. Consequently, an Information was filed in court.
Feeling aggrieved, Adaza filed a civil complaint for damages against the prosecutors before the Regional Trial Court. He alleged that the petitioners engaged in a deliberate and malicious act by filing a charge for a non-existent complex crime, knowing that rebellion could not be complexed with murder under the law. The prosecutors moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint for damages filed by Adaza states a valid cause of action against the prosecutors.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and should be dismissed. The Court characterized Adaza’s suit as essentially one for malicious prosecution. To establish such a claim, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the prosecution was initiated without probable cause and with malice.
The Court found that the prosecutors acted with probable cause, as their determination was based on sworn affidavits and a preliminary investigation. The mere fact that they recommended a charge for “rebellion with murder and frustrated murder”—a complex crime the Supreme Court had previously declared non-existent in Enrile v. Salazar—does not, by itself, prove malice or lack of probable cause. Prosecutors, as public officers, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. An error in legal judgment, absent a clear showing of malicious intent, is not actionable. Since the complaint did not sufficiently allege the essential elements of malicious prosecution, particularly the lack of probable cause and the presence of malice, it failed to state a valid cause of action. The trial court therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the complaint.