GR 152903; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152903 , July 17, 2006
THOMASITA RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. ROLANDO GADIANE & RICARDO RAFOLS JR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Thomasita Rodriguez was the private complainant in a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) filed against respondents. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) suspended the criminal proceedings, citing a prejudicial question in a separate pending civil case. Petitioner, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to assail the suspension order.
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed by the private complainant instead of the government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines. The RTC held that all initiatory pleadings in criminal cases must be initiated by the government counsel. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether a private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail an interlocutory order without the conformity of the public prosecutor.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the RTC’s orders and reinstating the civil case. The Court clarified that an “aggrieved party” under Rule 65 includes both the State and the private offended party. A long line of jurisprudence, beginning with Paredes v. Gopengco, establishes that offended parties in criminal cases possess sufficient interest and personality as persons aggrieved to file special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition.
The Court distinguished the capacity to appeal from the capacity to file a certiorari petition. While an appeal on the criminal aspect after a dismissal or acquittal must be instituted solely by the Solicitor General representing the State, a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order on jurisdictional grounds may be prosecuted by the private complainant in their own name. This is because the private complainant maintains a vested interest in the civil aspect of the case. In B.P. 22 cases, the criminal action is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and the suspension of the criminal case directly delays the resolution of the complainant’s claim for civil liability. Therefore, petitioner, as the private offended party, had the legal personality to file the certiorari petition independently to protect her interest in the civil aspect of the case.