78 Rodriguez v. Gadiane

[78] Rodriguez v.
GADIANE (Payawal) government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in

July 17, 2006| Ponente | Criminal Appeals: Who may appeal? criminal cases
5. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or signature of the
PETITIONER: THOMASITA RODRIGUEZ government prosecutor. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was
RESPONDENTS: ROLANDO GADIANE & RICARDO RAFOLS JR. denied on 28 February 2002.
6. Petitioner argues that a person aggrieved may file a special civil action
SUMMARY: Rodriguez is a private complainant, against Gadiane and Rafols for certiorari and that "person" includes the complainant or the
for violation of BP22. MTC ordered suspension due to prejudicial question in offended party
another civil case. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before
the RTC to set aside the order of suspension by the MTC. RTC dismissed the ISSUE:
case because of lack of signature by the government prosecutor. Petitioner 1. WoN an offended party (not just the public prosecutor) may file a special
argues that a offended party/complainant may file a special civil action for civil action for certiorari for a criminal case? YES
certiorari and not the government prosecutor.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of the
ISSUE WoN an offended party (not just the public prosecutor) may file a special Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Cebu City, dated December 11, 2001 and February
civil action for certiorari for a criminal case? YES 28, 2002, are SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. CEB-26195 is REINSTATED. Costs
against respondents.
There is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of the
civil aspect of the case against respondents. Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 RATIO:
Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. Text.
22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The possible 1. DOCTRINE: A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an
conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for damages aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or
in favor of petitioner. Thus, the petitioner may appeal. lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. In a long line of cases, this
Court construed the term "aggrieved parties" to include the State and the
DOCTRINE: A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved private offended party or complainant.
party alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of 2. The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the criminal case is dismissed
jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. In a long line of cases, this Court by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal
construed the term "aggrieved parties" to include the State and the private aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf
offended party or complainant. of the State. The capability of the private complainant to question such
dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case.
If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an 3. It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State,
appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is
State through the Solicitor General. limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a
criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an
FACTS: appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the
1. Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private complainant in a criminal State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may
case filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended
for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended
2. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) hearing the complaint had suspended the party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the
criminal proceeding on the ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a accused.
separate civil case then pending 4. In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of
3. On 28 February 2001, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, seeking to set aside the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
MTC order of suspension. jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by
4. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and
petition was filed by the private complainant, instead of the
the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest
in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional
grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name
of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of
said complainant
5. IN THIS CASE: It should be remembered that the order which herein
petitioner seeks to assail is not one dismissing the case or acquitting
respondents. Hence, there is no limitation to the capacity of the private
complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order.
6. There is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of
the civil aspect of the case against respondents. Section 1(b), Rule 111 of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for
violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. Hence, the possible conviction of respondents would concurrently
provide a judgment for damages in favor of petitioner. The suspension of
the criminal case which petitioner decries would necessarily cause delay in
the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case which precisely is the
interest and concern of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from the
courts.

78 Rodriguez v. Gadiane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

78 Rodriguez v. Gadiane

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

78 Rodriguez v. Gadiane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[78] Rodriguez v.

GADIANE (Payawal) government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in

You might also like