FACTS:

The case involves a question as to whether a private offended party in a criminal proceeding can file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, without the conformity of the public prosecutor. The petitioner, Thomasita Rodriguez, was the private complainant in a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) hearing the case suspended the criminal proceeding on the ground of a prejudicial question posed in a separate civil case. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to set aside the MTC's order of suspension. However, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or signature of the government prosecutor. The petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that a special action on an order issued by a lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that all initiatory pleadings in criminal cases should be initiated by the government counsel. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the private offended party to file a special civil action for certiorari. The Court emphasized that the complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case and can question the decision or action of the court on jurisdictional grounds. The Court further clarified that the private complainant's capacity to seek judicial relief is limited to the civil aspect of the case, and the criminal aspect can only be appealed by the state through the Solicitor General.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing an interlocutory order, without the conformity of the public prosecutor.

RULING:

1. Yes, a private offended party in a criminal proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing an interlocutory order, without the conformity of the public prosecutor. The Court held that an aggrieved party, which includes the private offended party or complainant, can file a special civil action for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. The Court emphasized that the private offended party has sufficient interest and personality to file such action. However, it should be noted that the private complainant's capacity to seek judicial relief is limited to the civil liability in criminal cases where the offended party is the State. The appeal on the criminal aspect of the case may only be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General.

PRINCIPLES:

• An aggrieved party, which includes the private offended party or complainant, can file a special civil action for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.

• The private offended party has sufficient interest and personality to file a special civil action for certiorari.

• The capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial relief is limited to the civil liability in criminal cases where the offended party is the State.

• The appeal on the criminal aspect of the case may only be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General.

• The private offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect of the case despite the acquittal of the accused.