People v. Escano, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 2, 1986, four separate criminal informations for Estafa were filed against Carlos Calianga, Romulo Pepito, and Jun Lozano with the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City. These cases were consolidated and assigned to respondent Judge Francisco H. Escano, Jr. Procedural History: The respondent judge, upon finding that the offended parties sought to enforce civil liabilities by way of actual damages, ordered the clerk of court to require the offended parties to pay the corresponding filing fees, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the judge denied the prosecuting fiscal's motion for reconsideration, which argued that the orders rendered ineffective the automatic institution of civil actions with criminal actions, violated substantive law (Article 104, Revised Penal Code), and imposed fees prematurely. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed the instant petition seeking to set aside the orders of the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in requiring the offended parties to pay filing fees for actual damages sought in consolidated Estafa cases. Whether the amendment to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure applies retroactively to pending litigations.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The payment of filing fees for actual damages is NOT REQUIRED in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of requiring filing fees for actual damages: The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the issues raised due to the subsequent amendment of Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The amended provision clarifies that when a civil action is instituted together with a criminal action, actual damages claimed by the aggrieved parties are not included in the computation of filing fees. Filing fees are only required if other types of damages, such as moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages, are alleged, or if not alleged, they shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. Therefore, the respondent judge erred in requiring the payment of filing fees for actual damages. On the retroactive application of the amendment: The Court held that the amendment to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure partakes of the nature of a curative statute. Curative statutes are generally given retroactive effect and are applied to pending litigations. In this case, the amendment was applied retroactively to the pending litigation, thereby affecting the respondent judge's orders. This retroactive application is crucial because it resolves the procedural issue concerning the payment of filing fees without needing to delve into the substantive merits of the original orders.
Main Doctrine
Filing fees are not required for claims of actual damages when the civil action is instituted together with the criminal action, as per the amendment to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which has retroactive effect.