Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Deus Dulay
    Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Deus Dulay
    2K views1 page
    Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

    Original Description:

    Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr. G.R. No. 78911-25, December 11, 1987

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Deus Dulay
    Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Banal vs.

    Tadeo

    Facts:
    Petitioner herein is one of the complainants in the criminal cases filed against
    Rosario Claudio. Claudio is charged with 15 separate information for violation of BP
    22. Claudio pleaded not guilty, thus trial ensued. Petitioner moved to intervene
    through private prosecutor but it was rejected by respondent judge on the ground
    that the charge is for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which does not
    provide for any civil liability or indemnity and hence, “it is not a crime against
    property but public order.” Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
    denied by the respondent judge. Hence this appeal.

    Issue:
    Whether or not a private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution for
    violation of BP 22 which does not provide for civil liability.

    Held:
    Yes. Under Art. 100 of the RPC, ‘every person criminally liable for a felony is
    also civilly liable.’ Thus a person committing a felony offends namely (1) the society
    in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated;
    and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity
    or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act
    or omission.
    While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives
    rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage
    to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to
    the civil liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or
    make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission,
    done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law. In
    other words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if the same felonious
    act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and
    proximate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of
    the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it
    is enough that the act or omission complained of is punishable, regardless of
    whether or not it also causes material damage to another.
    Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides:
    “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
    another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
    Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides,
    indemnification of the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or
    injury directly suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another.

    You might also like