G.R. Nos. L-78911-25 December 11, 1987
Charmina B. Banal, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Tomas V. Tadeo, Jr., Presiding Judge, RTC-Quezon City, Branch 105 and Rosario Claudio, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Charmina B. Banal filed fifteen criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against respondent Rosario Claudio. During the pre-trial, the respondent judge, presiding over Branch 105 of the Quezon City RTC, issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as a private prosecutor. The court reasoned that BP 22 is a crime against public order, not property, and thus does not provide for civil liability or indemnity, precluding private party intervention.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that civil liability arises from the criminal act, but the respondent court denied the motion. Consequently, the petitioner filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to set aside the orders and to compel the allowance of a private prosecutor, asserting her right to recover the value of the dishonored checks through the criminal proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the appearance of a private prosecutor in the BP 22 cases on the ground that the law does not provide for civil liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while BP 22 is indeed a crime against public order, this classification does not extinguish the offender’s civil liability arising from the damage caused to the private offended party. The foundation of civil liability is not the criminal statute itself but the obligation to repair damage caused to another by a wrongful act, whether punishable by law or not, as provided under Article 20 of the Civil Code.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Article 100, Revised Penal Code). A crime injures both the State and the private individual who suffers direct damage. In BP 22 cases, the payee who parts with value upon the assurance of the check suffers material damage when the check is dishonored. To require a separate civil action would be contrary to the constitutional mandate for a speedy and inexpensive administration of justice, leading to a multiplicity of suits. Therefore, the offended party has a substantive right to intervene through a private prosecutor to recover the civil indemnity corresponding to the face value of the checks, which is the direct and proximate result of the offense. The court ordered the respondent judge to permit the intervention of the private prosecutor.