Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Banal vs. Tadeo

Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

Uploaded by

Deus Dulay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Banal vs. Tadeo

Petitioner moved to intervene as a private prosecutor in criminal cases filed against Rosario Claudio for 15 violations of BP 22. The respondent judge rejected this on the grounds that BP 22 does not provide for civil liability or indemnity. The issue is whether a private prosecutor can intervene for violations of BP 22. The Court held yes, under Article 100 of the RPC, a person committing a felony is civilly liable. A felonious act gives rise to civil liability if it causes damage to another, regardless of whether the law provides for it. Article 20 of the Civil Code also provides that a person who causes damage to another must indemnify them.

Uploaded by

Deus Dulay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Banal vs.

Tadeo

Facts:
Petitioner herein is one of the complainants in the criminal cases filed against
Rosario Claudio. Claudio is charged with 15 separate information for violation of BP
22. Claudio pleaded not guilty, thus trial ensued. Petitioner moved to intervene
through private prosecutor but it was rejected by respondent judge 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.” Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied by the respondent judge. Hence this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not a private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution for
violation of BP 22 which does not provide for civil liability.

Held:
Yes. Under Art. 100 of the RPC, ‘every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.’ Thus a person committing a felony offends namely (1) the society
in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated;
and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity
or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act
or omission.
While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives
rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage
to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to
the civil liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or
make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission,
done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law. In
other words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if the same felonious
act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and
proximate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of
the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it
is enough that the act or omission complained of is punishable, regardless of
whether or not it also causes material damage to another.
Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides:
“Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides,
indemnification of the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or
injury directly suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another.

You might also like