Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Fifteen (15) separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) were filed against respondent Rosario Claudio. The cases were initially assigned to Branch 84 of the RTC-Quezon City, but the presiding judge inhibited himself. The cases were then re-raffled to Branch 105, presided over by Judge Johnico G. Serquina, and later by Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. Respondent Claudio pleaded not guilty and pre-trial was set. Procedural History: On January 8, 1987, the respondent court, presided over by Judge Tadeo, Jr., issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor. The court reasoned that BP Blg. 22 is an offense against public order and does not provide for civil liability. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the respondent court in an order dated March 31, 1987. The Petition: This petition for certiorari and mandamus seeks to set aside the orders of the respondent court and to allow Atty. Bustos to enter his appearance as private prosecutor.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction in rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor in a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Whether a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, considering the civil liability arising from the same act.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The respondent court is ordered to permit the intervention of a private prosecutor in behalf of petitioner Charmina B. Banal, in the prosecution of the civil aspect of Criminal Cases Nos. 40909 to 40913. The temporary restraining order issued by this court a quo for further proceedings. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent Court's discretion in rejecting a private prosecutor: The Court held that the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor. While Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the act of knowingly issuing worthless checks as an offense against public order, it does not preclude the existence of civil liability arising from the same act. On the issue of allowing a private prosecutor in BP Blg. 22 cases and the civil liability involved: The fundamental postulate of Philippine law is that "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable" (Art. 100, Revised Penal Code). This principle signifies that a criminal act may offend both the State and an individual. In cases involving BP Blg. 22, the offended party, who is the payee of the worthless check, suffers damage or injury. This damage or injury is the foundation of the civil liability, even if the special law itself does not explicitly provide for civil indemnity. Article 20 of the New Civil Code mandates that every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter. Therefore, regardless of whether BP Blg. 22 explicitly provides for indemnification, the offended party is entitled to recover damages directly suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act. The Court cited Lozano v. Hon. Martinez which acknowledged that the effects of a worthless check "touch the interests of the community at large" but also recognized the "wrong done to the private party defrauded" and the "injury to the public." The payee of the check is entitled to receive payment for which the worthless check was issued and to recompense for the damage caused. To deny the intervention of a private prosecutor would leave the offended party defrauded and empty-handed, potentially unable to recover even the face value of the check, thereby unjustly enriching the drawer at the payee's expense. Furthermore, allowing intervention serves the interest of speedy and inexpensive administration of justice, avoiding the multiplicity of suits that would arise from filing a separate civil action.
Main Doctrine
A private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in the prosecution of criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the offense, while considered against public order, also gives rise to civil liability for damages suffered by the offended party.