Magbanua vs Junsay Report

8/11/2019 Magbanua vs Junsay Report

1/8


2/8

Petitioner Rosemarie Magbanua worked as a

housemaid of respondent Pilar Junsay.

She was charged as a co-accused in the crime ofrobbery for robbing assorted pieces of jewelry and

cash amounting to P29,624 from the house of

respondent.

The prosecution relied on the admission of

petitioner that she participated in the robbery

together with her co-accused Fernandez and Gudo.


3/8

The defense averred the inadmissibility of the

confession because it was made by petitionerunder duress as she was maltreated by the

police to force her to confess.

The RTC acquitted petitioner of the crime ofrobbery on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence.

As a result, petitioner filed a complaint formoral and exemplary damages against

respondents Junsay and police officers Lopez

and Jacela.


4/8

She alleged that by reason of respondents false,malicious and illegal actuations in filing the

criminal case, she suffered untold pain, shame andhumiliation, worry and mental anguish.

Respondent filed an answer disclaiming the

allegation of maltreatment and that she had nohand in the filing of the criminal case except toexecute an affidavit regarding her ownership of thelost jewelry.

At the pre-trial, counsel for petitioners manifestedthat they were claiming damages for the maliciousprosecution and not for the alleged maltreatment ofpetitioner.


5/8

Whether or not respondent

Junsay is liable for

damages for malicious

prosecution.


6/8

NO

For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, theplaintiff must prove the following: (1) theprosecution did occur, and the defendant was

himself the prosecutor or that he instigated itscommencement; (2) the criminal action finallyended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action,the prosecutor acted without probable cause;and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal

malice an improper or a sinister motive.

It is not disputed that the first and secondelements are present.


7/8

Anent the question of whether the prosecutor acted

without probable cause in bringing the action

against petitioner Rosemarie, the filing of Criminal

Case No. 28 for Robbery was not without probable

cause.

Finally, in an action to recover damages based on

malicious prosecution, it must be established that

the prosecution was impelled by legal malice.

There is necessity of proof that the suit was so

patently malicious as to warrant the award ofdamages under Articles 19 to 21, of the Civil Code,

or that the suit was grounded on malice or bad

faith.


8/8

In the case at bar, there was also no proof of a

sinister design on the part of the respondents tovex or humiliate petitioner Rosemarie by instituting

the criminal case against her and her co-

accused. Respondent Pilar who was robbed of her

valuable belongings can only be expected to bringthe matter to the authorities. There can be no evil

motive that should be attributed to one, who, as

victim of a crime institutes the necessary legal

proceedings. Mere filing of a suit does not render a

person liable for malicious prosecution should hebe unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant

to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.

Magbanua vs Junsay Report

Documents

Transcript of Magbanua vs Junsay Report