Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

THOMASITA RODRIGUEZ v. ROLANDO GADIANE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182157 2015-08-17	ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION v. JOAQUIN ANG SERENO, C.J.
As a qualification, however, this Court recognizes that the private offended party has an interest in the civil aspect of the case.[28] Logically, the capability of the private complainant to question the dismissal of the criminal proceedings is limited only to questions relating to the civil aspect of the case.[29] It should ideally be along this thin framework that we may entertain questions regarding the dismissals of criminal cases instituted by private offended parties. Enlarging this scope may result in wanton disregard of the OSG's personality, as well as the clogging of our dockets, which this Court is keen to avoid.
	GR No. 212865 2015-07-15	HORACIO SALVADOR v. LISA CHUA BERSAMIN, J.
The Court has stressed that the People of the Philippines, being the real party in interest in every criminal proceedings, can be represented only by the OSG in criminal proceedings in the CA or in this Court.[26] Yet, this rule admits of exceptions, for as pronounced in Rodriguez v. Gadiane:[27]
	GR No. 189754 2012-10-24	LITO BAUTISTA v. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN PERALTA, J.
To be sure, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. In a catena of cases, this view has been time and again espoused and maintained by the Court. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane,[22] it was categorically stated that if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. The same determination was also arrived at by the Court in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II.[23] In the recent case of Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan,[24] the Court again upheld this guiding principle.
	GR No. 172777 2011-10-19	BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN v. SALLY GO BANGAYAN MENDOZA, J.
This Court leans toward Resally's contention that Sally Go had no personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State.[27] The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.[28] As explained in the case of People v. Santiago:[29]
	GR No. 182336 2009-12-23	ELVIRA O. ONG v. JOSE CASIM GENIO NACHURA, J.
Petitioner, however, is not without any recourse. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane,[30] we held: It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.