RODRIQUEZ v.

PONFERRADA
MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ, G.R. Nos. 155531-34
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - Panganiban, J.,
Chairman,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Hon. THELMA A. PONFERRADA, Corona,*
in Her Official Capacity as Carpio Morales, and
Presiding Judge of the Garcia, JJ
Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 104;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; Promulgated:
and GLADYS NOCOM,
Respondents. July 29, 2005

FACTS:

On December 10 2001, a Prosecutor issued a resolution

recommending an information to be filed against Petitioner Mary
Ann Rodriguez for the crime of ESTAFA and for violation of BP 22
(Bouncing Checks Law).
-as a consequence thereof, 2 separate informations were filed
(one for estafa and one for violation of BP 22)
On June 14 2002, private prosecutor Atty. Felix Solomon filed a
Formal Entry of Appearance for the respondent
-for the recovery of civil liability in the estafa case
On June 17 2002, Petitioner Rodriquez filed an Opposition to the
Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private Prosecutor
-because there was already a pending civil action in the MTC
involving recovery of civil liability arising from the violation of BP
22.
-so sabi ni Rodriguez tangina nag ttry ka na nga kumuha ng pera
doon sa MTC for the BP22 case, mag ttry ka pa kumuha ng pera
dito sa estafa case in the RTC??? Gago!

On June 27 2002, the public respondent court (RTC of Quezon

City) issued the first assailed Order allowing the appearance of
the private prosecutor Atty. Solomon.
On July 31 2002, accused Rodriquez filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.
On August 16 2002, the public respondent court (RTC of Quezon
City) issued the second assailed Order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration of Rodriquez.
Hence this petition for certiorari seeking to reverse the Order
allowing the appearance of the private prosecutor and the Order
denying Rodriquez Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a private prosecutor can be allowed to intervene

and participate in the proceedings of the above-entitled estafa
cases for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil liability
arising from the issuance of the checks involved which is also the
subject matter of the pending BP 22 cases.

HELD/RATIO:

YES. Atty. Solomon can be allowed to intervene and participate in

the estafa cases for recovery of civil liability.
Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: Intervention of the
offended party in criminal action. --- Where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
The possible single civil liability arising from the act of issuing a
bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed
instituted with the estafa case and the BP 22 violation
prosecution. As both remedies are simultaneously available to
this party, there can be no forum shopping.
The private prosecutor may intervene before the RTC in the
proceedings for estafa, despite the necessary inclusion of the
corresponding civil action in the proceedings for violation of BP
22 pending before the MTC.
-however, the recovery by the offended party under one remedy
necessarily bars the recovery under the other. Because the law
prohibits double recovery for the same act or omission.

In other words, may case for estafa in the RTC and may case for
violation of BP 22 in the MTC arising from the same act (issuing a
bouncing check). Pwede mag TRY mag recover ng civil liability sa
pareho. Sounds like forum shopping noh? Pero di daw eh.
Anyway, pwede mag TRY mag recover ng civil liability sa pareho
PERO once nakuha mo na sa isa, yung other civil action mo wala
na.