THOMASITA RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 152903
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JJ.
ROLANDO GADIANE & Promulgated:
RICARDO RAFOLS JR.
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
The Court is called upon to resolve the question of whether a
private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing an interlocutory order, without the
conformity of the public prosecutor.
The
facts are simple.
Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was
the private complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando Gadiane and
Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
(B.P. 22). The Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) hearing the complaint had suspended the criminal proceeding on the ground
that a prejudicial question was posed in a separate civil case then pending. On
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the petition was filed by the private
complainant, instead of the government prosecutor representing the People of
the
In an Order[1]
dated
From these orders, petitioner filed
the instant petition for review.
Petitioner argues that a person
aggrieved may file a special civil action for certiorari and that “person”
includes the complainant or the offended party.[2] Petitioner cited the cases of De La Rosa v. Court of Appeals[3]
and People v. Calo[4]
to support her claim that a special action on an order issued by a lower court
in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party.
In their Comment, respondents submit
that in all criminal cases, all initiatory pleadings, as well as subsequent
proceedings, must be initiated by the government counsel because the injured
party is the People of the Philippines and the private complainant is a mere
witness to the offense allegedly committed by the accused.[5]
Respondents rely on the cases of People v.
Dacudao[6] and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Veridiano II[7]
to reiterate their position that a private prosecutor in a criminal case has no
authority to act for the People of the
We find merit in the petition.
A
special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the trial court.[8] In a long line of cases, this Court construed
the term “aggrieved parties” to include the State and the private offended
party or complainant.
As early as in the case of Paredes v. Gopengco,[9] it was held that the offended parties
in criminal cases have sufficient interest and personality as "person(s)
aggrieved" to file the special civil action of prohibition and certiorari
under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. Apropos
thereto is the case cited by petitioner, De
la Rosa v. Court of Appeals,[10]
wherein it was categorically stated that the aggrieved parties are the State
and the private offended party or complainant.
It was further held in De la Rosa that
the complainant has such an interest in the civil aspect of the case that he
may file a special civil action questioning the decision or action of the
respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not
bring the action in the name of the People of the
The Court has nonetheless recognized
that if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an
acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by
the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The capability of the private
complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the
civil aspect of the case.[14]
This rule is reiterated in the Metrobank case cited by respondent.
However, it should be remembered that the order which herein petitioner seeks
to assail is not one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents. Hence, there
is no limitation to the capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial
review of the assailed order.
The other case cited by petitioner, Dacudao,
warrants some elaboration. The Court therein did question the fact that the
special civil action assailing the grant of bail was filed not by the
representatives of the People, but by the private prosecutor. However, the doctrinal value of such
statement is doubtful, considering that the Court nonetheless gave cognizance
to the special civil action, “in the interest of a speedy determination of the
case,” among others. Moreover, it should be appreciated that the order assailed
in Dacudao, which pertained to the grant
of bail, intimately concerned the criminal aspect of the case and had no
discernible relation to its civil aspect.
In this case, there is no doubt that
petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil aspect of the
case against respondents. Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. Hence, the possible
conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for damages in
favor of petitioner. The suspension of the criminal case which petitioner decries
would necessarily cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the said
case which precisely is the interest and concern of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from the courts. Significantly, under the present Rules of
Court,[15] complainants in B.P. 22 cases have to pay
filing fees upon the commencement of such cases in court to protect their
interest.
The basic postulates concerning the
capacity of a private complainant in the criminal case to seek judicial relief
from adverse orders by the trial court were eloquently elucidated in People
v. Santiago.[16] The
elucidation deserves iteration as a proper closing.
It is well-settled that in
criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the
private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is
limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom
on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the
Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the
In a special civil action for
certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is
alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that
the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the
aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant.
The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file
such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent
court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the
action in the name of the People of the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12,
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[11]377
Phil. 642 (1999).
[15]Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sec. 1(b).
x x x x
Upon
filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party
shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved,
which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complain or information also seeks
to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged
therein. If the amounts are not so
alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the
filing fees are based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment.
x x x x