G.R. No. 48955 ; July 27, 1943
GERVASIO ERAÑA, et al., petitioners, vs. JOSE O. VERA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and MARIE JOSEPHINE PANZANI, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Marie Josephine Panzani was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with three separate criminal cases: (1) murder (against Dr. Francisco Erana), (2) frustrated murder (against Bienvenido P. Erana), and (3) estafa. In the murder and frustrated murder cases, the offended parties expressly reserved their right to institute a separate civil action for civil liability. In the estafa case, the offended persons did not waive nor reserve their right to institute a separate civil action. The offended parties filed a petition in these three criminal cases applying for a preliminary attachment of the respondent’s properties under Rule 59, Section 1 of the new Rules of Court. The respondent judge issued an order declaring the court to be without authority to issue writs of preliminary attachment in criminal cases. The petitioners filed this combined petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul that order and compel the respondent court to consider the merits of the motion for preliminary attachment.

ISSUE

Whether a court, acting on a criminal case, has authority to grant a preliminary attachment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners.
1. For the Estafa Case: The respondent court has authority to grant a preliminary writ of attachment. Under Rule 107, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, since the offended persons in the estafa case did not waive or reserve their right to a separate civil action, the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The court, having jurisdiction over this civil action, has jurisdiction over all its necessary incidents under Rule 124, Section 6, which includes the auxiliary writ of preliminary attachment to make its civil judgment effective. The previous rulings in U.S. vs. Namit and People vs. Moreno (which held preliminary attachment improper in criminal cases) were based on the absence of a clear legal provision, a doubt resolved by the new Rules of Court. The respondent judge’s order was a mistake of law, warranting the grant of the writ of mandamus to compel him to act on the motion for attachment in the estafa case.
2. For the Murder and Frustrated Murder Cases: The respondent court has no authority to issue preliminary writs of attachment. Since the offended parties expressly reserved their right to institute a separate civil action, the civil actions arising from these offenses are not before the court in the criminal cases. Consequently, there is no civil action to which a preliminary attachment could serve as an auxiliary writ, and the court lacks jurisdiction to issue it. The respondent judge’s order declaring a lack of authority for these cases is valid.
The petition was granted regarding the estafa case and denied regarding the murder and frustrated murder cases. No costs were awarded.