Facts:

The case involves Charmina B. Banal as the petitioner and Hon. Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr., the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 105, alongside Rosario Claudio as the respondent. On January 8, 1987, the Regional Trial Court issued an order disallowing the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as a private prosecutor for Criminal Cases Nos. Q-40909 to Q-40913, which allege violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) against Claudio. A total of fifteen separate informations were filed against Claudio, originally processed under Branch 84, but after a judge's inhibition due to a recusal petition by Claudio, the cases were reassigned to Branch 105 on June 25, 1986. Claudio was arraigned on November 20, 1986, pleading not guilty. On the scheduled pre-trial date of January 8, 1987, Judge Tadeo issued the pivotal order refusing Atty. Bustos’s appearance, reasoning that violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are offenses against public order

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves Charmina B. Banal as petitioner and the Hon. Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr., presiding judge of RTC – Quezon City, Branch 105, along with Rosario Claudio as respondents.
• The petition was filed for certiorari seeking to review and set aside orders rendered by the RTC Branch 105.

Procedural History

• Fifteen separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against respondent Rosario Claudio and originally assigned to Branch 84.
• Upon the filing of a recusal petition by respondent Claudio’s counsel on May 19, 1986, the presiding judge of Branch 84 inhibited himself.
• The cases were re-raffled and assigned on June 25, 1986, to Branch 105, initially presided over by Judge Johnico G. Serquina.
• Respondent Claudio was arraigned on November 20, 1986 and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
• Pre-trial proceedings were set for January 8, 1987.

Intervention of the Private Prosecutor

• On January 8, 1987, the RTC Branch 105 issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor.
• The basis for the rejection was that the charge under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is deemed an offense against public order rather than a crime against property.
• It was held that the law did not provide for any civil liability or indemnity, implying that only the state and the public have standing in such cases.
• The petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of this order on March 10, 1987.
• Respondent Claudio filed her opposition to the aforementioned motion on March 25, 1987.
• Subsequently, the RTC Branch 105 denied the motion for reconsideration on March 31, 1987.

Contentions Presented

• Respondents argued that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the offense of knowingly issuing worthless checks is directed against public order, excluding any mechanism for civil indemnity or intervention by a private prosecutor.
• The petitioner contended, relying on the legal axiom “Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable”, that indemnity may be recovered irrespective of the specific provisions of the law.
• The petitioner further asserted that allowing her intervention as a private prosecutor was necessary to secure the prompt and inexpensive administration of justice and to avoid the burdens of a separate civil suit for indemnity.

Issue:

• Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of its jurisdiction by rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as a private prosecutor.

• Whether the legal principle that “Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable” supports the intervention of a private prosecutor in cases involving the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

• Whether excluding the private prosecutor’s intervention, thereby compelling the private party to pursue a separate civil action for indemnity, serves the interests of justice, especially when the damage inflicted on the offended party is evident.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)