Case Summary (G.R. No. 174238)
Procedural Antecedents
Anita Cheng filed estafa charges (Criminal Cases No. 98-969952/53) before RTC Branch 7 and BP Blg. 22 charges (Criminal Cases No. 341458-59) before MeTC Branch 25. The RTC dismissed both estafa cases: one without ruling on civil liability and the other deeming any liability purely civil. The MeTC dismissed the BP Blg. 22 cases on demurrer for failure to identify respondents, also without civil-liability pronouncement.
Civil Complaint and RTC Dismissal
Cheng then instituted Civil Case No. 05-112452 before RTC Branch 18 to collect ₱600,000 plus damages. The court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the corresponding civil action had been impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 proceedings. Reconsideration was denied.
Retroactive Application of Procedural Rules
Respondent contended that the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure should not apply to January 1999 BP Blg. 22 cases. The Supreme Court reiterated that under the 1987 Constitution, procedural statutes apply retroactively to pending cases. Retroactive application of procedural law does not impair vested substantive rights.
Effect of BP Blg. 22 Rule on Civil Action
Section 1(b), Rule 111 provides that a BP Blg. 22 criminal action “shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action” and bars any reservation to file civil claims separately. Post-filing separate civil suits are prohibited; only pre-criminal separate actions may be consolidated. Therefore, Cheng’s resort to a distinct civil complaint was barred by res judicata for failure to appeal the implied civil aspect in the BP Blg. 22 cases. Article 31 of the Civil Code (on ex-contractu obligations proceeding independently) was inapplicable.
Prosecutorial Error and Reservation of Rights
Cheng argued lack of private-prosecutor assistance led to a failure to establish respondent identities and to appeal the civil aspect. Counsel’s mistakes generally bind the client, but gross negligence that deprives a party of property or liberty without due process warrants relief. The public prosecutor’s failure to appeal the civil component of the BP Blg. 22 dismissal denied Cheng her only remaining remedy to recover th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 174238)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed two estafa cases (Criminal Case Nos. 98-969952 and 98-969953) against respondents before RTC Branch 7, Manila, for issuing PBC checks of P300,000.00 each that bounced for lack of funds.
- On the same factual basis, petitioner filed two BP Blg. 22 cases (Criminal Case Nos. 341458-59) before MeTC Branch 25, Manila.
- On March 16, 2004, RTC Branch 7 dismissed both estafa cases for failure to prove criminal elements; one dismissal reserved civil liability, the other declared any liability purely civil.
- On February 7, 2005, MeTC Branch 25 dismissed the BP Blg. 22 cases on demurrer for failure to identify the accused, without pronouncing on civil liability.
- On April 26, 2005, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 05-112452 for collection of P600,000.00 with damages in RTC Branch 18, Manila, based on the same loan and checks.
- RTC Branch 18 dismissed the civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction by Order dated January 2, 2006, invoking Section 1(b) of Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- RTC Branch 18 denied reconsideration on June 5, 2006.
- Petitioner sought review under Rule 45, raising applicability of Rule 111 and Circular No. 57-97 for BP Blg. 22 proceedings.
Factual Antecedents
- Respondents obtained a loan of P600,000.00 from petitioner, secured by two PBC checks each for P300,000.00.
- Both checks dishonored upon presentment for drawing on a closed account.
- Estafa charges: alleged fraudulent issuance of checks.
- BP Blg. 22 charges: illegal issuance of bouncing checks.
- Civil complaint: seeking principal amount of P600,000.00 plus damages.
Legal Issues
- Whether Section 1 of Rule 111 (2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure) and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 apply to BP Blg. 22 cases filed in 1999.
- Whether the civil action for collection of money is deemed instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases, barring a separate suit.
- Whether petitioner’s failure to appeal the civil aspect in the BP Blg. 22 proceedings precludes recovery.
- Whether petitioner