G.R. Nos. 155531-34 - MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ, VS. HON. THELMA A. PONFERRADA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 104; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GLADYS NOCOM.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appearance of a private prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this Court pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended." [4] The Facts The undisputed facts are narrated by petitioner as follows: "On 10 December 2001, the Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. Morales-Montojo of Quezon City Prosecutor's Office issued her Resolution in I.S. No. 01-15902, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "Premises considered, there being PROBABLE CAUSE to charge respondent for ESTAFA under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) as amended by PD 818 and for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is respectfully recommended that the attached Information be approved and filed in Court." "As a consequence thereof, separate informations were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner before proper [c]ourts, for Estafa and [v]iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. "Upon payment of the assessed and required docket fees by the [p]rivate [c]omplainant, the informations for [v]iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against herein [p]etitioner were filed and raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 42, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 0108033 to 36. "On the other hand, the informations for [e]stafa cases against herein [p]etitioner were likewise filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-106256 to 59. "On 17 June 2002, petitioner through counsel filed in open court before the [p]ublic [r]espondent an 'Opposition to the Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private Prosecutor' dated 14 June 2002. "The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty. Felix R. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein [p]etitioner. x x x. "As ordered by the Court, [p]rivate [c]omplainant through counsel filed her Comment to the Opposition of herein [p]etitioner. "On 27 June 2002, the [p]ublic [r]espondent court issued the first assailed Order allowing the appearance of the [p]rivate [p]rosecutor in the above-entitled criminal cases upon payment of the legal fees pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. "On 31 July 2002, [a]ccused through counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 July 2002. "On 16 August 2002, the [p]ublic [r]espondent court issued the second assailed Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein [p]etitioner." [5] Ruling of the Trial Court Noting petitioner's opposition to the private prosecutor's entry of appearance, the RTC held that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted, unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action, (2) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (3) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Considering that the offended party had paid the