G.R. No. 154207 . April 27, 2007. FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO and HON. ZENAIDA LAGUILLES, Respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz, a law student, filed an Entry of Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case for Grave Threats where his father was the complaining witness. He invoked Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr., which allows a non-lawyer to appear before inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) denied his appearance, holding that the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) and related Circular No. 19, which require law student practice under a supervising attorney, should prevail.
Cruz filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the MeTC from proceeding. The RTC denied the injunction, ruling that the crime of Grave Threats is prosecutable de oficio and, allegedly having no civil aspect, does not legally permit a private prosecutor’s intervention. The RTC subsequently denied Cruz’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether a law student may appear as a private prosecutor in a criminal case before an inferior court under Section 34, Rule 138, notwithstanding the provisions of the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A).

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It clarified that Section 34, Rule 138, which permits a non-lawyer to appear before any court as an agent or friend of a party litigant, was not repealed or superseded by the subsequent adoption of Rule 138-A (the Law Student Practice Rule). These rules can be harmonized. Rule 138-A establishes a structured clinical legal education program for law students, requiring supervision by an accredited attorney. In contrast, Section 34 provides a separate, general authority for any non-lawyer, including a law student, to appear as an agent or friend, without the supervisory requirements of Rule 138-A. The Court held that the two rules provide distinct avenues for appearance; one does not exclude the other.
Furthermore, the RTC erred in stating that Grave Threats has no civil aspect. Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable unless the offense is among the rare exceptions where no actual damage results (e.g., espionage). Grave Threats is not such an exception. Since the civil action for indemnity is deemed instituted with the criminal action, the offended party has a right to intervene through a private prosecutor. Therefore, the petitioner, as an agent of the complaining witness, could rightfully appear as a private prosecutor under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The assailed RTC resolutions were reversed and set aside, and the MeTC was directed to admit Cruz’s Entry of Appearance.