Cembrano v. Cembrano

Summary

This Supreme Court case involves a procedural dispute over the proper remedy to challenge prosecutorial decisions. Glen Eric Cembrano challenged the Court of Appeals' decision allowing a Rule 65 certiorari petition against a Regional State Prosecutor's order suspending a B.P. 22 criminal case based on an alleged prejudicial question. Cembrano argued that appeal to the Secretary of Justice was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's authority under Rule 65 to review prosecutorial acts with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no valid prejudicial question existed because civil cases and B.P. 22 prosecutions can proceed independently, as the reason for issuing checks is irrelevant to criminal liability under B.P. 22, which punishes the mere act of issuing worthless checks. The decision clarifies the scope of certiorari jurisdiction over prosecutorial decisions and reinforces B.P. 22 jurisprudence.