Case Digest (G.R. No. 246892)
Facts:
In Charmina B. Banal v. The Hon. Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr., petitioner Charmina B. Banal sought certiorari and mandamus against respondent Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 105, and accused Rosario Claudio. On May 19, 1986, respondent Claudio filed a petition for recusal of the presiding judge of Branch 84 where fifteen (15) separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) had been filed as Criminal Cases Nos. Q-40909 to Q-40913. Consequently, the cases were re-raffled on June 25, 1986 to Branch 105, initially presided over by Judge Johnico G. Serquina. Claudio was arraigned on November 20, 1986 and pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial was set for January 8, 1987. By that date, Judge Tadeo had replaced Judge Serquina. On January 8, 1987, Branch 105 issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is an offense against publicCase Digest (G.R. No. 246892)
Facts:
- Petition and subject orders
- Charmina B. Banal filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to review two orders of the RTC-Quezon City, Branch 105:
- Order dated January 8, 1987 rejecting Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos’s appearance as private prosecutor in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-40909 to Q-40913 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violations).
- Order dated March 31, 1987 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the January 8, 1987 order.
- Relief prayed: Mandate allowing Atty. Bustos to enter his appearance as private prosecutor.
- Proceedings in the trial court
- Fifteen separate informations for bouncing checks (Criminal Cases 40909–40913) filed in RTC Quezon City, initially assigned to Branch 84; judge inhibited on recusal petition of respondent Claudio.
- Cases re-raffled to Branch 105 on June 25, 1986 (presided by Judge Serquina); respondent Claudio arraigned November 20, 1986 (plea of not guilty); pre-trial set January 8, 1987.
- Judge Tomas V. Tadeo Jr. succeeded Judge Serquina; on January 8, 1987, the court held that BP 22 is an offense against public order without civil liability and thus denied private prosecutor’s appearance.
- Post-order motions and appeal
- Motion for reconsideration filed March 10, 1987; opposition by respondent Claudio on March 25, 1987.
- RTC order dated March 31, 1987 denying reconsideration.
- Petition to the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction.
Issues:
- Substantive issues
- Whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 22’s characterization of bouncing checks as an offense against public order, without express provision for civil indemnity, precludes private parties from recovering civil damages in the same criminal proceeding.
- Whether the legal axiom “Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable” (Art. 100, RPC) and general civil law (Art. 20, NCC) permit civil indemnity for the private victim despite BP 22’s silence.
- Procedural issues
- Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in rejecting the private prosecutor’s appearance.
- Whether permitting intervention by a private prosecutor in the civil aspect promotes speedy, inexpensive justice and avoids multiplicity of suits.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)