View full case

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ALBERTO MINA

FACTS:

Ferdinand A. Cruz filed a Petition for Certiorari challenging the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in a criminal case. The petitioner, a third-year law student, had filed a formal Entry of Appearance as a private prosecutor in the said criminal case. However, the MeTC denied the petitioner's request, citing Circular No. 19 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, and set the case for trial. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that Rule 138-A does not supersede Section 34 of Rule 138, which gives the Supreme Court authority to interpret the rules. The MeTC denied the motion. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the RTC, which also denied the petitioner's request for a writ of preliminary injunction, stating that the crime of Grave Threats can be prosecuted de oficio and does not require a private prosecutor. The RTC denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioner filed a direct Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging errors in the rulings of the RTC and MeTC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent regional trial court (RTC) abused its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction.

  2. Whether the RTC erred in denying the petition on the basis that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect.

  3. Whether the respondent Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) abused its discretion in denying the motion to hold in abeyance trial.

RULING:

  1. The writ of preliminary injunction was properly denied by the RTC. The crime of Grave Threats is a case that can be prosecuted de oficio, meaning it can be pursued by the state without the need for a private prosecutor. Hence, the intervention of a private prosecutor, in this case, the petitioner who is a non-lawyer, is not legally tenable.

  2. The RTC did not err in denying the petition on the basis that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. The law does not provide that this crime has a civil aspect, and therefore, the petitioner's argument is not in accordance with the law.

  3. The MeTC did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to hold in abeyance trial. The RTC had already denied the entry of appearance of the petitioner as a private prosecutor, and the MeTC is bound to follow the order of the higher court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The crime of Grave Threats is a case that can be prosecuted de oficio, and the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable.

  • The law does not provide that the crime of Grave Threats has a civil aspect.

  • The decisions and orders of a higher court, such as the RTC, are binding on the lower courts, such as the MeTC.