You are on page 1of 2

Rodriguez vs. Ponferrada (2005) o Sec. 1 of Rule 111.

Petitioner: Mary Ann Rodriguez (b) Criminal action for violation of BP22 shall be deemed to include
Respondent: Hon. Thelma Ponferrada, RTC Judge Quezon City, People of the Philippines and Gladys corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
Nocom separately shall be allowed. In these cases, criminal prosecution
becomes the sole function of public prosecutor
Key takeaway: - Basically, Petitioner is saying that with the institution of criminal action under BP22, civil
- In Estafa and BP22 cases, single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct action is deemed instituted and no separate action can be filed.
criminal offenses.
- General Rule is Sec. 16 of Rule 110 allows an offended party to intervene through private Issue: W/N private prosecutor can be allowed to intervene in the estafa case for the purpose of
prosecutor in each penal proceeding. However, for recovery of SINGLE CIVIL liability arising prosecuting the attached civil liability from the issuance of the checks (considering that such checks are
from a single act in either of the crimes bars the recovery from a civil liability in another since also the subject matter of the BP22 pending case)?
civil liability is caused by damage to another. In this case, offended party sustained only a
single injury caused by the checks. Held: Petition has NO MERIT. Civil action in BP22 Case is not a Bar to Civil Action in Estafa Case

Petition for Certiorari: seeking to reverse RTC decision denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration Ratio:
in allowing the appearance of private prosecutor - Rule 111 provide instances when an offended party may not intervene:
> no civil liability arises
Facts: > offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity but waive, reserve the right to institute civil
1. City Prosecutor of QC issued in a resolution that there is probable cause to charge Rodriguez action or if the suit has been instituted already.
with Estafa (Art. 315, RPC) and violation of BP22 (Bouncing Checks Law). - none of these instances apply in the present case and thus, private prosecutor cannot be barred
a. Separate informations were filed from intervening.
b. Upon payment of assessed and required docket fees:
i. BP22 case was filed in MeTC of QC - Petitioner is invoking the Doctrine of Election of Remedies = adoption of one of the 2 or more
ii. Estafa case was filed in RTC coexisting remedial rights, with the effect of precluding a resort to the others.
2. Rodriguez filed before the RTC of QC an Opposition to the Formal Entry of Appearance of o Purpose prevent double redress for a single wrong (estoppel) Mellon Bank vs.
Private Prosecutor Magsino
a. But RTC of QC noted such appearance of Atty. Solomon as private prosecutor (to o However, there are certain state of facts under the law which entitles a party to
pursue civil liability against Rodriguez) alternative remedies. Invocation of one is not an election which will bar the other
b. Rodriguez filed an Opposition because the presence of such private prosecutor is unless the suit upon the remedy first invoked has reached final adjudication.
limited to civil actions which must be presented in the BP22 case pending with the o Basically, SC is saying that there is no election of remedies yet since no judgment
MeTC, not in the Estafa case in the RTC. on the merits in either case has been made.
c. RTC of QC (Judge Ponferrada) issued an order ALLOWING the appearance of o Although the civil action is deemed instituted in BP22 case upon its filing, the
private prosecutor in the Estafa Case (RTC) based on: institution of another set of civil actions under estafa case is allowed since no
i. BP22, Sec. 5 states that prosecution under BP22 is without prejudice to judgment has been made yet.
liability for violations under RPC o Nothing in the RoC signifies that the necessary inclusion of a civil action in criminal
ii. Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from estafa cases is case for BP22 precludes the institution in an estafa case of a corresponding civil
deemed instituted with criminal action and thus, private prosecutor is action even if both offenses relate to the issuance of same checks.
allowed to intervene in the estafa case even if BP22 case was filed - other concepts:
prior to estafa case. o basis for civil liability -> Art. 100 every man criminally liable is also civilly liable
iii. Allowed the appearance upon payment of legal fees pursuant to Rule o offends 2 entities in committing a crime
141, Sec. 1 of RoC. State
d. Rodriguez filed Motion for Reconsideration Individual member of society
e. Ponferrada denied M/R based on: o Rule 111 purpose of special clause on BP22, explained by J. Regalado (chairman
i. Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from offense is deemed of committee which revised RoCrimPro) because creditors were using courts as
instituted, unless the offended party: collectors. To prevent creditors from using threat of criminal prosecution to
1. Waives civil action collect credit free of charge.
2. Reserves the right to institute it separately; or What 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits is the RESERVATION to file
3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action corresponding civil action.
ii. Offended party paid filing fee for estafa case first (and thus, civil action Rule 111 says that unless a separate civil action has been filed before
is deemed instituted) before the filing of BP22 case in MeTC, the RTC the institution of the criminal action, no such civil action can be
allowed the private prosecutor to appear and intervene. instituted after the criminal action has been filed as the same has been
Position of Petitioner: included therein. This just means that once the BP22 case is filed, no
- Civil actions arising from criminal cases of BP22 precludes the institution of corresponding separate filing for civil action is necessary since it is deemed instituted.
civil action for estafa pending in RTC based on Rules 110 and Rules 111 of Roc: Since the criminal action for estafa was filed prior to BP22, civil action
o Rule 110, Sec. 16 - Intervention of the offended party in criminal action Where can still be instituted separately from BP22s deemed instituted civil
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action action.
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene BY COUNSEL in the Final Ruling: RTC approval of entry of appearance AFFIRMED.
protection of the offense.