This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Sec. 11, Art. III of the Constitution guarantees right of access to the courts. This right is coupled with the responsibility to show that a suit is impelled by a legitimate cause of action.[22] The exercise of such legal right with responsibility does no injury. However, when the institution and pursuit of a legal proceeding is without probable cause, the only purpose thereof being to harass, annoy, vex or injure an innocent person who is then compelled to defend himself in court, it amounts to malicious prosecution.[23] Denuncia falsa or malicious prosecution is misuse or abuse of judicial processes. The party who is injured by such abuse may, at the termination of the frivolous suit, file a civil action for damages based on the provisions of the Civil Code on human relations.[24] But to merit an award of damages, he must prove that: (a) the defendant was himself the prosecutor or at least instigated the prosecution; (b) the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of plaintiff; (c) in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (d) the prosecutor was actuated by malice, i.e., by improper and sinister motives.[25] He must also prove the damages he has suffered.[26] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is malicious prosecution when a person directly insinuates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime and the accused is compelled to defend himself in court. While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions, the term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause.[25] | |||||