G.R. No. L-23625 - People vs. Terrado

Petitioner Lydia Cu, acting as a private complainant, filed a Complaint-Affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against respondent Trinidad Ventura before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
The complaint involved allegations of issuing a check without sufficient funds, implicating both criminal and civil liabilities.

The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause and an Information was subsequently filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City against respondent.
At trial in the MeTC, Branch 37, the respondent was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22.
The MeTC’s decision, dated January 10, 2014, ordered the respondent to:

Pay the amount on the check (P2,000,000.00) plus interest at 12% per annum.
Pay a fine of P200,000.00.
Suffer imprisonment for sixty (60) days.
Bear the costs of suit, including attorney’s fees and per appearance fee, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Respondent Trinidad Ventura filed a Notice of Appeal.
On December 3, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 87, Quezon City, reversed and set aside the MeTC decision by acquitting the respondent on the basis of insufficient proof.
The RTC also dismissed the civil aspect of the case due to the private complainant failing to prove the requisite preponderance of evidence.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, which was denied in its Resolution dated May 5, 2015.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On July 20, 2015, petitioner filed her Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the CA.
The CA, holding that in criminal cases only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has the authority to represent the State, dismissed the appeal in its Resolution dated December 11, 2015.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was similarly denied on May 13, 2016.

Asserting that respondent was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating BP 22.
Claiming that the civil aspect should be properly questioned, asserting civil liability for the amount claimed.

Petitioner argued that because she challenged the civil aspect in her Rule 42 petition, the intervention of the OSG was unnecessary.
Respondent countered that the petition improperly attempted to address both the criminal and civil aspects, and further contended that petitioner lacked standing to represent a corporation into which the subject check had been deposited.

The petitioner contends that the elements of the offense were proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial.
The issue turns on whether this Court should review factual findings from the trial court regarding the criminal aspect.

Whether or not respondent is liable to petitioner for the civil aspect of the case.

The petitioner seeks recovery of damages amounting to P2,400,000.00 along with interests.
The controversy involves whether the evidence sufficiently establishes civil liability on a preponderance of evidence basis.
The issue also examines whether a private complainant may pursue an appeal on a civil liability determination without involving the OSG.