Civil aspect of crimes tried by Sandiganbayan; RA 8249 - G.R. No. 175091

G.R. No. 175091

(click link)

"x x x.

ggrieved, petitioners come before this Court. While they admit that they are aware of the principle of the hierarchy of the courts, they opted to directly appeal before this Court considering that the issue to be resolved entails an interpretation of Section 4, R.A. No. 8249, otherwise known as the “Sandiganbayan Act,” which provides:



Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:



x x x



In case private individuals are charged as co-principal, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise jurisdiction over them.



Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, that where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise, the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.” [Emphasis Supplied]



In this petition, the petitioners presented this lone



ISSUE



WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OR ANY OTHER COURTS HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY CIVIL CASE NO. 00-0089 GIVEN THE MANDATORY SIMULTANEOUS INSTITUTION AND JOINT DETERMINATION OF A CIVIL LIABILITY WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION AND THE EXPRESS PROHIBITION TO FILE THE SAID CIVIL ACTION SEPARATELY FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTION AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT 8249?[18]





After a careful review of the records, the Court finds no commission of a grave abuse of discretion which can be attributed to the public respondent in issuing the challenged Orders dated May 8, 2006, July 12, 2006 and August 26, 2006.



As correctly pointed out by the public respondent, the subject civil case does not fall within the purview of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 as the latter part of this provision contemplates only two (2) situations. These were correctly pointed out by the public respondent as follows: First, a criminal action has been instituted before the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts after the requisite preliminary investigation, and the corresponding civil liability must be simultaneously instituted with it; and Second, the civil case, filed ahead of the criminal case, is still pending upon the filing of the criminal action, in which case, the civil case should be transferred to the court trying the criminal case for consolidation and joint determination.



Evidently, Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 finds no application in this case. No criminal action has been filed before the Sandiganbayan or any appropriate court. Thus, there is no appropriate court to which the subject civil case can be transferred or consolidated as mandated by the said provision.



It is also illogical to consider the civil case as abandoned simply because the criminal cases against petitioners were dismissed at the preliminary stage. A reading of the latter part of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8294 suggests that the civil case will only be considered abandoned if there is a pending criminal case and the civil case was not transferred to the court trying the criminal case for joint determination.



The criminal charges against petitioners might have been dismissed at the preliminary stage for lack of probable cause, but it does not mean that the civil case instituted prior to the filing of the criminal complaints is already baseless as the complainants can prove their cause of action in the civil case by mere preponderance of evidence.



While the dismissal of the criminal cases against them for Violation of R.A. No. 7438 (Acts Defining Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation) and unlawful arrest and the conviction of the complainants for Violation of City Ordinance No. 265 (Drinking Liquor in Public Place),[19] might be factors that can be considered in their favor, the petitioners should have proceeded with the trial of the civil case pending before the public respondent instead of filing this petition.



The rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable,[20] “even on pure questions of law.”[21] Neither can it be subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The rule is founded on considerations of orderly procedure, to forestall useless appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they are promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be contested in a single appeal.[22]



All told, the Court finds that the public respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders.

x x x."