FACTS:

Homobono Adaza filed a complaint for damages against Franklin Drilon and others, alleging that they maliciously prosecuted him on charges of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. The charges were based on a letter-complaint by General Renato de Villa, requesting the Department of Justice to investigate Adaza and others for their alleged involvement in a failed coup d'etat in December 1989. A special composite team of prosecutors found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information against Adaza. However, Adaza claimed that the charges were baseless and malicious. The trial court denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, leading to a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the appellate court's resolution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the complaint filed by Adaza against the petitioners states a cause of action for damages for malicious prosecution.

2. Whether or not the prosecution acted without probable cause in filing the criminal information against Adaza for rebellion with murder and frustrated murder.

3. Whether or not the decision of the Special Team of Prosecutors to file the information against Adaza was justified.

4. Whether or not the Hernandez doctrine, which prohibits complexing rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion of rebellion, remains applicable

5. Whether or not the petitioners can be held liable for malicious prosecution

6. Whether or not respondent Judge had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

7. Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title.

RULING:

1. The complaint filed by Adaza against the petitioners does not state a cause of action for damages for malicious prosecution because it fails to allege the fact of prosecution, the defendant being the prosecutor, and the acquittal of the accused.

2. The complaint does not allege that the prosecution acted without probable cause in filing the criminal information against Adaza. Probable cause refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite a reasonable belief that the person charged is guilty of the crime. If there is probable cause, one cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution.

3. The decision of the Special Team of Prosecutors to file the information against Adaza for rebellion with murder and frustrated murder was justified. The decision was based on an 18-page resolution and the petitioners were of the honest conviction that the Hernandez case, which proscribes the complexing of murder and other common crimes with rebellion, can be differentiated from the present case. The Supreme Court, although not sustaining the position of the petitioners, acknowledged that there is a need to re-study the Hernandez ruling in light of present-day developments.

4. The Supreme Court held that the Hernandez doctrine, which was applied in 1956 during the communist-inspired rebellion, needs clarification as changes in society have created alternative modes of seizing the powers of the government not contemplated in the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the doctrine that rebellion absorbs other offenses may no longer be applicable in all circumstances.

5. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution as they were of the honest conviction that there was probable cause to hold the respondent for trial for the crime of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. The presence of probable cause signifies the absence of malice, and there was no evidence to prove malicious intent or a sinister design to harass the respondent.

6. The Court nullified and set aside the Orders issued by respondent Judge, thereby confirming that he did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

7. The Court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title since it did not involve possession or ownership of real property which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC).

PRINCIPLES:

• To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that the charges were false and groundless.

• Three elements must concur for a malicious prosecution suit to prosper: (1) fact of prosecution and acquittal, (2) lack of probable cause, and (3) legal malice.

• A suit for malicious prosecution will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause.

• Probable cause refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite a reasonable belief that the person charged is guilty of the crime.

• The decision to file a criminal information must be based on a reasonable belief that the accused is guilty of the crime.

• The Hernandez doctrine, which states that all acts committed in furtherance of, or in connection with, rebellion are absorbed by the latter, may not be applicable in all circumstances and needs clarification.

• Public officials are accorded the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of their duties.

• Lack of probable cause signifies the absence of malice.

• A complaint must allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for malicious prosecution, and a mere conclusion of law is not enough.

• Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the action and the law in force at the time of its accrual.

• The jurisdiction of the RTC is limited and defined by law, and any action falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC should be filed before the latter.

• The action for quieting of title involves the determination of the validity or invalidity of claims or liens of a party on a real property.