People vs. Alapan (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued 8 postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22 with a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued, the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

Both the MTC and RTC denied the motion. Likewise, the CA dismissed the petition for it was filed without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Ruling: Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime.

In this case, respondent was convicted of eight (8) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for which he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment pursuant to Administrative Circulars No. 12-2000 and 13-2001. Thus, the penalty of fine and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment thereof pertain to the criminal aspect of the case. On the other hand, the indemnification for the face value of the dishonored checks refers to the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, petitioner could not appeal the imposition of fine as penalty which was not even questioned by the People through the OSG. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution of the CA, which dismissed the petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).