Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    The document discusses a case where 15 separate charges for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law were filed against a respondent. The respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor on the grounds that the law does not provide for civil liability. The issue is whether the court abused its discretion in rejecting the private prosecutor. The ruling found that every crime gives rise to a criminal and civil action, so civil liability cannot be denied and a private prosecutor should be allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    16 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where 15 separate charges for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law were filed against a respondent. The respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor on the grounds that the law does not provide for civil liability. The issue is whether the court abused its discretion in rejecting the private prosecutor. The ruling found that every crime gives rise to a criminal and civil action, so civil liability cannot be denied and a private prosecutor should be allowed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where 15 separate charges for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law were filed against a respondent. The respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor on the grounds that the law does not provide for civil liability. The issue is whether the court abused its discretion in rejecting the private prosecutor. The ruling found that every crime gives rise to a criminal and civil action, so civil liability cannot be denied and a private prosecutor should be allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Banal vs. Tadeo

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    The document discusses a case where 15 separate charges for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law were filed against a respondent. The respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor on the grounds that the law does not provide for civil liability. The issue is whether the court abused its discretion in rejecting the private prosecutor. The ruling found that every crime gives rise to a criminal and civil action, so civil liability cannot be denied and a private prosecutor should be allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CHARMINA B. BANAL vs. THE HON. TOMAS V. TADEO, JR.

    G.R. No. 78911-25 December 11, 1987


    GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
    Fifteen separate informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law were
    filed against respondent Claudio, who then pleaded not guilty to the charges.
    In the meantime, Judge Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr. replaced Judge Serquina as presiding judge. During Pre-trial, the
    respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor on the
    ground that the charge is for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which does not provide for any civil liability
    or indemnity and hence, "it is not a crime against property but public order."
    The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but was denied. Hence, this petition questioning
    the orders of the respondent Court.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction in
    rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor.
    RULING:
    Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that "Every
    man criminally liable is also civilly liable" (Art. 100, The Revised Penal Code). Every crime gives rise to a penal or
    criminal action for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to civil action for the restitution of the thing, repair of
    the damage, and indemnification for the losses. (United States v. Bernardo, 19 Phil. 265).
    Indeed, one cannot disregard the private party in the case at bar who suffered the offenses committed against
    her. Not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief as a member of the public which the law seeks to
    protect. She was assured that the checks were good when she parted with money, property or services. She suffered
    with the State when the checks bounced. Civil liability to the offended private party cannot thus be denied.
    Surely, it could not have been the intendment of the framers of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 to leave the offended
    private party defrauded and empty- handed by excluding the civil liability of the offender, giving her only the
    remedy, which in many cases results in a Pyrrhic victory, of having to file a separate civil suit. To do so, may leave
    the offended party unable to recover even the face value of the check due her, thereby unjustly enriching the errant
    drawer at the expense of the payee. The protection which the law seeks to provide would, therefore, be brought to
    naught.
    The petitioner's intervention in the prosecution of criminal cases is justified not only for the protection of her
    interests but also in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice mandated by the Constitution
    (Section 16, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of 1987). A separate civil action for the purpose would only
    prove to be costly, burdensome, and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the
    case. This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioner's rights may be fully adjudicated in the
    proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted.

    You might also like