Rodriguez v. Gadiane Digest

RODRIGUEZ v.
GADIANE
ISSUE: W/N 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?
FACTS:
 Petitioner Thomasita Rodriguez was the private complainant in a criminal case filed
against respondents Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. for violation of BP 22.
 The Municipal Trial Court hearing the complaint suspended the criminal proceeding on the
ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a separate civil case then pending.
 On February 28, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
RTC seeking to set aside the MTC order of suspension which was docketed as Civil Case
No. CEB-26195.
 Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was filed
by a private complainant, instead of the government prosecutor representing the People
of the Philippines in criminal cases.
RTC DECISION: In its order, the RTC DISMISSED the petition for lack of conformity or signature
of the government prosecutor. It later DENIED the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
 In her argument, the petitioner claims that a person aggrieved may file a special civil action
for certiorari and that “person” includes the complainant or the offended party. She cited
the cases of De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals and People v. Calo to support her claim.
 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. They pointed out that it is the
government’s counsel, the Solicitor General who appears in criminal cases before the
Supreme Court. They relied on the cases of People v. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company v. Veridiano II to support their claims.
RULING:
 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.
o The Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to include the State and the
private offended party or complainant.
 In the case of Paredes v. Gopengco, it was held that 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.
 As stated by the petitioner, the case of De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals categorically stated
that the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. It
was further held 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, the complainant should not bring the action in
the name of the People of the Philippines. He should do so and prosecute it in his name
as such complainant.
 Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial
court or there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be
instituted by the Solicitor General 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.
o This was reiterated in the Metrobank case cited by the respondents. 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.
 In the other case cited by respondents, Dacudao, the Court 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. Therefore, 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 the petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from the courts.
Significantly, under the present Rules of Court, complainants in BP 22 cases have to pay
filing fees upon the commencement of such cases to protect their interest.
 In People v. Santiago, 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
are pointed out.
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 Philippines on appeal. The private offended
party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the
civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.
In a special civil action for certiorari filled 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 Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant.
DP: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 12, Cebu City, dated December 11, 2001 and February 28, 2002, are SET ASIDE. Civil
Case No. CEB-26195 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.

Rodriguez v. Gadiane Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez v. Gadiane Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez v. Gadiane Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RODRIGUEZ v.

 In People v. Santiago, the basic postulates concerning the capacity of a private

You might also like