Laws & Jurisprudence
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
1:36 AM
It
has been defined as an action for damages brought by or against whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. (Diaz
v. Davao Light and Power Co., 520 SCRA 510, 2007)
One
cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution
where he acted with probable cause.
Reason: It would be a very
great discouragement to public justice if prosecutors, who had a tolerable
ground of suspicion, were liable to
be
sued at law when their indictments miscarried. (Que vs. IAC)
EXCEPTION: An action for damages brought by
one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding
has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the
termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the
defendant herein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in
force, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation or injury.
Requisites for Malicious
Prosecution:
1.
Fact
of the prosecution
2. Defendant was himself
the prosecutor
3. Action was
terminated with an acquittal
4. Prosecutor acted
without probable cause
5.
Prosecutor
was impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive (Drilon
vs. CA)
As
to the elements of malicious prosecution, the presence of probable cause
signifies the absence of malice. (Albenson vs. CA)
Malice is the inexcusable
intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate
It
seems that the second and third elements are REDUNDANT.
Cases:
Moral
damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another
in good faith, or without malice or bad faith. If damage results from the
filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque injuria.( Mijares vs. CA)
While
it must be admitted that this case is peculiar in that it is one filed by a
daughter against her own mother, that alone does not justify any counterclaim,
specifically for the exemplary damages and moral damages sought to be collected
since the complaint as has been said has been found to have some merit. The adverse
result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor
to the payment of moral damages.
The
law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such
right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may
exercise it erroneously. (Castillo vs. Castillo)
DISCLAIMER: The author is not lawyer nor an authority on this topic. It is a product of humble research and study of law. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer.
0 comments