3Republic of tbe tlbilippines

$,Upreme Qtourt
iffil,anila

ENBANC

MAMERTO AUSTRIA, G.R. No. 205275

Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA, *
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING **
'
-versus- ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,
MARQUEZ,
KHO, JR., and
SINGH,JJ

Promulgated:
AAA and BBB,
Respondents. June 28, 2022
x---------------------------------------------------~~-------x

DECISION "'-----
LOPEZ, M., J.:

In the exercise of its exclusive rule-making authority and the symbolic

function to instructthe bench and the bar, the Court once again embarks on
the arduous task to harmonize the case law and ·formulate guidelines on the
private offended parties' legal personality to question judgments and orders in
criminal proceedings.

* On official business.
On leave on official time.

I
 2 G.R. No. 20527~:
Decision

ANTECEDENTS

In 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Mamerto Austria

(Mamerto ), a school teacher, of five counts of acts of lasciviousness
1
committed against private complainants, both 11-year-old female students.
Mamerto moved for reconsideration. 2 Meantime, the trial judge handling the
criminal cases was promoted. On August 15, 2008, the new presiding judge
resolved the motion and rendered Joint Orders3 acquitting Mamerto, thus:

[Criminal Case Nos. 1216, 1221 & 1222]

AT BAR is the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 5, 2007 of the

Decisions of [the] Court dated October 17, 2006 (for Crim Case Nos. 1216,
1221 & 1222) and October 20, 2006 (for Crim Case Case Nos. 1342 &
1343) filed by the accused through counsel alleging, among others as
follows: that [the] Court has given full credence to the complainant's sole
and self-serving testimonies, while at the same time gave no weight to the
accused's various uninterested witnesses and documentary evidence which
strongly show the accused's want of opportunity to consummate the
charges alleged; that several charges related to these cases were
dropped/dismissed and evidently, complainants made false statements on
these dismissed charges, hence, following the maxim of "falsus in unus,
falsus in maximus" (falsity in one is falsity in all), the entire claims or
charges of the same complainants which are subject matter of these cases
must also be dismissed considering that these cases are criminal in nature
wherein the rigid requirements of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
before conviction must be made; that the prosecution failed to present any
other students who could have corroborated their stories of lascivious acts
committed by the accused if ever their [claims] are true considering that
there were many students in the said school at the days and time alleged by
the complainants; that [the] Court failed to give credence and weight to the
defense's witnesses consisting of various students of his class who were
around when the alleged incidents occurred, or the school officials who
testified that the accused was attending conferences/meetings of
teachers/officers; that [the] Court also failed to consider the investigation
conducted by the Department of Education, which found that the charges
were bereft of truth, the reason why the administrative charges were
dismissed against the herein accused; that the pieces of evidence introduced
by the defense in the Department of Education must be given weight it duly
deserve as an official act of a government agency, following the principle of
regularity in the performance of official functions; that the accused is a
Public School Teacher who has been in government service for more or less
twenty (20) years without having been involved in any anomaly nor in any
irregular or criminal act; that the Supreme Court, in numerous cases has
been very emphatic in requiring a very thorough scrutiny in cases filed
against honor considering the vulnerability of the accused in these
particular type of cases; that the entire evidence submitted by the
complainants, arrayed against the gamut of evi<lence, docmnentary and
testimonial which were presented by the accused, are not sufficient, nor
strong enough to sustain a conviction. The accused prayed unto [theJ Court
to revisit the instant cases and have a thorough review thereon so that the

Rollo, pp. 133-175; and 176-212, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1216, 1221, 1222, 1342 and 1343.
2
Id. at 213-216.
Id. at 123-127 and 128-132.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 205275

documentary and testimonial evidences of the defense can be given due

weight and consideration considering that as a Public School Teacher, the
Decision of [the] Court has far reaching implications upon him. Thus, the
accused prayed that the assailed Decision be reconsidered and the charges
against the accused be dismissed. The accused further prayed for such other
reliefs and remedies which are just and equitable under the premises.

As there was no Reply/Comment on the part of the Prosecutor to the

accused's Memorandum despite the time given by the Court, the instant
Motion for Reconsideration was deemed submitted for resolution.

On August 17, 2007, the accused, through counsel, filed a

Memorandum (for the Accused) alleging, among others, as follows: that the
acts constitutive of the alleged violations should be clearly established by
the prosecution through the private complainant following the rule that
"every essential element of the crime charged must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the
accused; that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of the private
complainant on December 15, 1998 (TSN pages 14-16); that since
according to the statement of the private complainant that she was not alone
inside the room when the alleged incident occurred, the impossibility of the
performance of the acts is highly probable; that it is contrary to human
practice that what she had only done after the incident is to go to her room
and attend the flag ceremony (TSN, p. 17); that the [sic] her failure to recall
which hand was used by the accused in allegedly fondling her breast should
be taken against her; that she also gave conflicting testimonies during her
cross-examination on January 13, 1999, which should weaken her case
(TSN, pages 7- 8); that her reason of not telling other people, more so of her
mother, about the alleged, incidents being complained of is that they may
not believe her (TSN, 1/13/99, p. 14); that the conflicting statements she has
given at the questions propounded to her during cross-examination
conducted on January 13 and March 11, 1999, greatly gave a cloud on her
credibility (TSN, 12/15/2008 pages 16 & 18 and TSN, 3/11/99 pages 7
&14); that the accused was not in the subject place on November 10 and 14,
1997 and has presented proofs in support of his defense; that the presence of
a student (Abegail Buhay) other than the private complainant herself inside
the shoproom where the alleged acts were committed aside from her
classmate just outside the room doing the gardening at a time when there are
other students inside the school put a reasonable doubt on the credibility of
the testimony of private complainant; that Abegail Buhay was not presented
in Court to testify despite the fact that her testimony is essential to the case
of the private complainant; that while it is said that denial and alibi are the
weakest of all the defenses, the physical impossibility for the accused to be
in the school with the private complainant is highly possible considering
that the testimonies of the private complainant that the accused was present
thereat and have committed the crimes are very inconsistent which just
destroyed her credibility; that Dr. Armando Hernandez, one of the members
of the Fact Finding Committee created by the [Department of Education] to
investigate the same charges, testified on April 17, 2002 that the dismissal
of the said charges was premised on the facts that there were inconsistencies
in the interviews made on the private complainant and the fact that the
accused has proven himself not present on the said dates stated by the
witness (TSN, p.11 ); that Mrs. Salvacion Aquino Catapang and her
daughter, Jolibee Catapang testified on May 29, 002 [sic] that private
complainant and her parents went to their house inducing Jolibee Catapang
to testify against the accused that the latter was touched also by the accused;

r
 4 G.R. No. 20527~:
Decision

that the private complainant did not rebut the aforesaid testimonies of
Salvacion and Jolibee Catapang.

The accused further averred that due to the malicious accusations of

the private complainant, his reputation as a public school teacher has been
tainted and damged [sic]; that he has a clean record during his entire
practice of profession because he has been teaching since 1971, almost 29
years, without having been charged of any case by any student or pupil; that
the provisions of R.A. No, 7610 are intended to provide special protection
to children from all forms of abuse, such intent, while to be upheld, should
not be used by the private complainant, whimsically and capriciously, by
false fabricating [sic] charges to the extent that the accused may be
imprisoned.

The accused reiterated his prayers that the instant complaint against
him be dismissed for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and further prayed for such other reliefs and remedies
which are just and equitable under the premises.

A perusal of the foregoing facts shows that the prosecution

miserably failed to overcome the legal presumption of innocence of the
accused beyond cavil of reasonable doubt and therefore the
DECISION dated October 20, 2006 is hereby reconsidered and set
aside and a new one is rendered DISMISSING the informations filed
against herein accused and consequently ACQUITTING him of the
crimes charged. 4 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)

[Criminal Case Nos. 1342 and 1343]

AT BAR is the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 5, 2007 of the

Decisions of this Court dated October 17, 2006 (for Crim Case Nos. 1216,
1221 & 1222) and October 20, 2006 (for Crim Case Nos. 1342 & 1343)
filed by the accused through counsel alleging, among others as follows: that
[the] Court has given full credence to the complainant's sole and
self-serving testimonies, while at the same time gave no weight to the
accused's various uninterested witnesses and documentary evidence which
strongly show the accused's want of opportunity to consummate the
charges alleged; that several charges related to these cases were
dropped/dismissed and evidently, complainants made false statements on
these dismissed charges, hence, following the maxim of "falsus in unus,
falsus in maximus" (falsity in one is falsity in all), the entire claims or
charges of the same complainants which are subject matter of these cases
must also be dismissed considering that these cases are criminal in nature
wherein the rigid requirements of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
before conviction must be made; that the prosecution failed to present any
other students who could have corroborated their stories of lascivious acts
committed by the accused if ever their [claims] are true considering that
there were many students in the said school at the days and time alleged by
the complainants; that [the] Court failed to give credence and weight to the
defense's witnesses consisting of various students of his class who were
around when the alleged incidents occurred, or the school officials who
testified that the accused was attending conferences/meetings of
teachers/officers; that this Court also failed to consider the investigation
conducted by the Department of Education which found that the charges

4
Id. at 128-132.

r
Decision 5 G.R. No. 205275

were bereft of truth, the reason why the administrative charges were
dismissed against the herein accused; that the pieces of evidence introduced
by the defense in the Department of Education must be given weight it duly
deserve as an official act of a government agency, following the principle of
regularity in the performance of official functions; that the accused is a
Public School Teacher who has been in government service for more or less
twenty (20) years without having been involved in any anomaly nor in any
irregular or criminal act; that the Supreme Court, in numerous cases has
been very emphatic in requiring a very thorough scrutiny in cases filed
against honor considering the vulnerability of the accused in these
particular type of cases; that the entire evidence submitted by the
complainants arrayed against the gamut of evidence, documentary and
testimonial which were presented by the accused, are not sufficient, nor
strong enough to sustain a conviction. The accused prayed unto [the] Court
to revisit the instant cases and have a thorough review thereon so that the
documentary and testimonial evidences of the defense can be given due
weight and consideration considering that as a Public School Teacher, the
Decision of [the] Court has far reaching implications upon him. Thus, the
accused prayed that the assailed Decision be reconsidered and the charges
against the accused be dismissed. The accused further prayed for such other
reliefs and remedies which are just and equitable under the premises.

As there was no Reply/Comment on the part of the Prosecutor to the

accused's Memorandum despite the time given by the Court, the instant
Motion for Reconsideration was deemed submitted for resolution.

On his Memorandum, the accused through cmmsel, argued, among

others, as follows: that while the administrative investigation conducted by
[Department of Education] which resulted to the dismissal of the case
against the accused could not have any binding effect on the present charge,
the same should have persuasive effect considering the similarities of the
charges; that one (1) out of three (3) charges originally filed against the
accused, specifically the one allegedly happened on September 19, 1997,
was dismissed in the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground
that no crime could have occurred on that day at the premises of Bilaran
Elementary School which involved the accused for the simple reason that
classes were suspended on that day on all public schools within the
Nasugbu District due to the Induction Ceremony of Nasugbu Teachers
Association; that once a person knowingly and deliberately states a
falsehood in one material aspect, he must have done so as to the rest (People
v. Dasig49 O.G. 3338, 1953) because the presumption is that a witness who
has willfully given false testimony in one detail, has also testified falsely in
other respects (Neyra v. Neyra, 76 Phil. 333, 1946)(Handbook of Legal
Maxims by German G. Lee, Jr., 2000 Edition, p. 82); that the accused did
not refute the fact that he touched the private complainant and considering
that he is being charged for acts of lasciviousness, the act of touching is to
be determined whether it is lascivious or not since he was merely pulsing
the neck of the private complainant to know whether she has a fever while
she was lying on the tabie due to dizziness and such incident happened in
the presence of other students [TSN, 2-6-01]; that such fact was testified to
by the accused and corroborated by the testimony of two (2) students which
are classmates of the private complainant, one of whom is also her friend
[TSN 7-25- 01 and TSN 9-12-01]; that when she was cross-examined on
March 4, 1999 her natural reaction regarding the circumstances surrounding
the alleged incident is contrary to the natural reaction of someone who is
supposed to have been subjected to acts of lasciviousness; that a certain
 6 G.R. No. 205275 ;
Decision

Mark Anthony was not presented in Court to corroborate her testimony that
the former told her that he saw what was done to her by the accused; that the
private complainant's allegation that she was called by the accused on
November 17, 1997 through Daniel Relevo was belied by the latter in his
testimony on November 14, 2001; that the testimony of the accused that it
was Flordeliza Alic who has been regularly taking the key of the shop room
and opening the same was corroborated by the latter when she testified on
November 17, 1997 thus the incident that allegedly occurred on November
17, 1997 at around 6:30 a.m. as alleged by the private complainant did not
occur; that in as much as the accused is being charged of criminal offense
with imprisonment as penalty if found guilty, hence, every statement made
by the private complainant should be regarded with such caution so as not to
override his constitutional and statutory presumption of innocence; that the
reputation of the accused has been tainted and damaged due to the
malicious accusations of the private complainant as he was teaching for
almost twenty (29) [sic] years without any case filed against him by any
student thus, he has a clean record during his entire profession.

The accused reiterated his prayers that the instant complaint against
him be dismissed for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and further prayed for such other reliefs and remedies
which are just and equitable under the premises.

A perusal of the foregoing facts shows that the prosecution

miserably failed to overcome the legal presumption of innocence of the
accused beyond cavil of reasonable doubt and therefore, the
DECISION dated October 20, 2006 is hereby reconsidered and set
aside, and a new one is rendered DISMISSING the informations [sic]
filed against herein accused and consequently ACQUITTING him of
the crimes charged. 5 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)

Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, 6 private complainants filed a special

civil action for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 114771 7 . They alleged that the new presiding judge committed grave
abuse of discretion in rendering the Joint Orders of acquittal which merely
recited the contents of the accused's motion for reconsideration without
stating any factual and legal basis. 8 Mamerto opposed the petition arguing
that a review of his acquittal will place him in double jeopardy. Moreover, the
private complainants cannot avail of a petition for certiorari in criminal
proceedings without the participation or conformity of the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG).

On July 31, 2012, the CA ruled that the RTC is guilty of grave abuse of
discretion when it disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision
must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
As such, the Joint Orders acquitting Mamerto are void and double jeopardy
will not attach,9 to wit:

5
Id. at 123-127.
6
Id. at 274-279.
7
Id. at 280-332.
8
Id. at 280-332.
9
Id. at 93-116; penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Fernanda Larnpas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 205275

We have painstakingly reviewed the assailed Orders and found

them seriously lacking and violative of the constitutional mandate that
decisions must fully explain the facts and the law upon which it is
based.

xxxx

A scrutiny of the foregoing Orders show [sic] that they merely

repeated verbatim the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 7, 2007
filed by private respondent assailing the Decisions convicting him of
Acts of Lasciviousness. Public respondent Judge De Joya Mayor
swallowed hook, line[,] and sinker the allegations of the accused. After
quoting the allegations of the accused, public respondent Judge De
Joya Mayor proceeded right away to his judgment without a thorough,
nay, even a single discussion or explanation on why he believed the
allegations to be true. It is evident that public respondent Judge De
Joya Mayor merely "perused" the facts, and to him[,] it was sufficient
to overturn the verdict of guilt. Without a thorough explanation or
statement of the law, facts and the evidence, the assailed Orders violate
the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. The rendition of these
assailed Orders is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Failure to
comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders issued in
careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and
must be struck down as void. Thus, in this regard, We agree with petitioners
that the said Orders are void judgments.

xxxx

All told, We find in this instant case that respondent judge, in

rendering the assailed Orders, committed grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby

GRANTED. The assailed Joint Orders both dated Augusts 15, 2008
rendered by public respondent Judge De Joya Mayor acquitting private
respondent Austria of Acts of Lasciviousness are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. The Joint Decision rendered by Hon. Elihu Ybanez dated October
17 L 2006] in Criminal Case Nos. 1216, 1221 & 1222 and the Joint
Decision dated October 20, 2006 in Criminal Case Nos. 1342 & 1343 are
hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 10 (Emphases supplied)

Mamerto sought for a reconsideration but was denied. 11 Hence this

Petition for Review on Certiorari 12 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Mamerto invokes his right against double jeopardy and reiterates that the
Joint Orders of acquittal are already final and not subject to review. Mamerto
maintains that private complainants have no legal personality to question his
acquittal.

10
Id.atl04-115.
11
Id. at 117-118.
12
Id. at 61-92.
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 20527~: ,

On August 3, 2021, the Court required the OSG to file a comment on

the private complainant's legal standing in a criminal case. 13 In its
Comment, 14 the OSG avers that the prosecution and punishment of crimes is
the State's assertion of its sovereign authority to enforce penal laws. The
People of the Philippines are the real parties-in-interest in a criminal action
represented by its statutorily authorized agents, namely, the OSG and the
public prosecutors. On the other hand, the interest of the private offended
party in a criminal case is limited only to the civil liability of the accused. The
fusion of the civil aspect in a criminal action is merely a procedural rule. The
private complainant is a mere witness in the criminal proceedings and he or
she cannot assail the acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the criminal case,
or interlocutory order with respect to the criminal aspect of the case. The
private offended party seeking to elevate a criminal case before the Court and
the CA must seek the OSG's conformity or concurrence. The private
complainant's remedy assailing the criminal aspect of the case without the
intervention of the OSG is perforce dismissible. 15

Also, the OSG points out that the public prosecutor represents the State
in a criminal case before the trial court, and that it is not furnished with copies
of records during the trial stage. The OSG only becomes aware of the outcome
of the trial when the Office of the Prosecutor General (OPG) or the private
complainant endorses the case. Consequently, the OSG is left with limited
time to study the case before the lapse of the period to assail the judgment or
order in a criminal case. Hence, the OSG recommends that the reglementary
period to question the criminal aspect of the case must be reckoned from the
OSG's receipt of the endorsement from the OPG or request from the private
offended party. In the alternative, the OSG suggests that it should always be
required to file a comment on the appeal or petition filed by the private
complainant emanating from criminal action based on due process
considerations. The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or
concurs with the remedy of the private offended party. However, the OSG
clarifies that the private complainant may appeal insofar as the civil liability
of the accused is concerned, or file a special civil action for certiorari to
preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case. In both cases, there is
no need to implead the State as the case involves purely private interests.
Lastly, the OSG gives its confonnity to the petition for certiorari that private
complainants filed before the CA. The OSG argues that the trial court's Joint
Orders are void for failure to state clearly the factual and legal bases of
Mamerto's acquittal. 16

RULING

The private complainant's interest is

limited only to the civil aspect of the
13
Id. at 489-492,
14
Id. at 529-556,
15
Id.at615
16
Id. at 623-624.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 205275

case. Only the Office of the Solicitor

General may question the judgments
or orders involving the criminal
aspect of the case or the right to
prosecute in proceedings before the
Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals.

In any criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or
State before the Supreme Court (SC) and the CA. This is explicitly provided
under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the 1987
Administrative Code of the Philippines, thus:

Section 35. Power and Functions. - The Office of the Solicitor

General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized
by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent
government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor
General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall
discharge duties requiring the service of a lawyer. It shall have the
following specific power and functions:

(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
(Emphasis supplied)

The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the state is the
party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action and not the private
complainant. The interest of the private offended party is restricted only to the
civil liability of the accused. In the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution such that
when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal,
an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through
the OSG. 17 The private offended party may not take such appeal, but may
only do so as to the civil aspect of the case. 18 Differently stated, the private
offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but
only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. Also, the private
complainant may file a special civil action for certiorari even without the
intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his or her interest in
the civil aspect of the case. 19 Hence, the Court dismissed for lack of legal
standing or personality the appeals or petitions for certiorari filed by the
private offended parties before the SC and CA, without the consent or

17
Rodriguez v. Gadiane, 527 Phil. 691. 698 (2006).
18
Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230, 246 (2015).
19
Cu v. Ventura, 840 Phil. 650 (2018).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 20527~'. ,

conformity of the OSG, questioning the dismissal of the criminal case or

acquittal of the accused.

In Jimenez v. Sorongon, 20 the trial court granted the accused's motion

for judicial determination of probable cause and dismissed the criminal case
for syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment. The private complainant
filed a notice of appeal but the R TC expunged it from the records absent
conformity of the OSG. Aggrieved, the private complainant elevated the case
to the CA through a petition for certiorari. However, the CA dismissed the
petition outright due to the private complainant's lack of personality to
represent the People of the Philippines. The Court affirmed the CA's findings
considering that the private complainant's main argument is about the
existence of probable cause, viz.:

The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the
OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or
in [the] Court. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several cases and
continues to be the controlling doctrine.

While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be
allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is a
denial of due process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply in the
present case.

In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the

dismissal of the criminal case since the main issue raised by the
petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case, i.e., the existence of
probable cause. The petitioner did not appeal to protect his alleged
pecuniary interest as an offended party of the crime, but to cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action against the respondents. This involves
the right to prosecute which pertains exclusively to the People, as
represented by the OSG. 21 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Similarly, in Anlud Metal Recycling Corp. v. Ang, 22 the private

complainant has no personality to appeal, without participation of the OSG,
the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa since it questioned the trial court's
finding as to want of probable cause to indict the accused, thus:

Here in this Rule 45 petition, petitioner argues that the RTC erred
when it concluded that "there is no evidence of conspiracy against private
respondent Ang." Petitioner goes on to enumerate circumstances that
collectively amount to a finding that based on probable cause, respondent
conspired with the accused in defrauding Anlud Metal Recycling
Corporation.

Clearly, petitioner mainly disputes the RTC's finding of want of

probable cause to indict Ang as an accused for estafa. This dispute
refers, though, to the criminal, and not the civil, aspect of the case.

20
700Phil.316(2012).
21
Id. at 325.
22
766 Phil. 676 (2015).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 205275

xxxx

Given that nowhere in the pleadings did petitioner even briefly

discuss the civil liability of respondent, [the] Court holds that Anlud Metal
Recycling Corporation lacks the requisite legal standing to appeal the
discharge of respondent Ang from the Information for estafa. On this
ground alone, the petition already fails.

Nonetheless, [the] Court has already acknowledged the interest of

substantial justice, grave en-or committed by the judge, and lack of due
process as veritable grounds to allow appeals to prosper despite the
non-participation of the OSG. But as will be discussed below, petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that the petition falls under any of these
exceptions. 23 (Emphases supplied; citation omitted)

In People v. Piccio (Piccio ), 24 therein private complainant lacks

standing to file a notice of appeal, without consent of the OSG, assailing the
dismissal of the criminal case for libel for the failure of the information to
allege where the article was printed and first published, to wit:

The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by

petitioners xx x because they, being mere private complainants, lacked
the legal personality to appeal the dismissal of Criminal Case No.
06-875 (resulting from the quashal of the information therein on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction).

To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the State

in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in
the OSG which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers
and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people
before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the
ends of justice may require. xx x

xxxx

Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a

criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is
only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing
the People. x x x

Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely to
preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case. Rather, by seeking the
reversal of the RTC's quashal of the information in Criminal Case No.
06-875 and thereby seeking that the said court be directed to set the case for
an-aignment and to proceed with trial, it is sufficiently clear that they
sought the reinstatement of the criminal prosecution of respondents
for libel. Being an obvious attempt to meddle into the criminal aspect
of the case without the conformity of the OSG, their recourse, in view
of the above-discussed principles, must necessarily fail. To repeat, the
right to prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People,
which is therefore the proper party to bring the appeal through the
representation of the OSG. Petitioners have no personality or legal

23
Id. at 687.
24
740 Phil. 616 (2014).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 205275, : ,

standing to interpose an appeal in a criminal proceeding. 25 (Emphases

supplied; citations and underscoring omitted)

In Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, 26 therein private complainant has no

personality to file a petition for certiorari before the CA, without participation
of the OSG, to question the trial court's dismissal of the criminal charge for
bigamy on demurrer to evidence because the prosecution failed to prove that
the accused contracted a subsequent marriage, viz. :

[The] Court leans toward Resally's contention that Sally Go

had no personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA. It has
been consistently held that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or
the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor
General, acting on behalf of the State. x x x

A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go before the

CA discloses that she sought reconsideration of the criminal aspect of the
case. Specifically, she prayed for the reversal of the trial court's order
granting petitioners' demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a full
blown trial of the criminal case. Nowhere in her petition did she even
briefly discuss the civil liability of petitioners. It is apparent that her only
desire was to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case against the
petitioners. Because bigamy is a criminal offense, only the OSG is
authorized to prosecute the case on appeal. Thus, Sally Go did not have
the requisite legal standing to appeal the acquittal of the petitioners.

xxxx

In this case, however, neither the Solicitor General nor the City
Prosecutor of Caloocan City joined the cause of Sally Go, much less
consented to the filing of a petition for certiorari with the appellate
court.xx x

xxxx

x x x. An examination of the decision of the trial court, however, yields

the conclusion that there was no grave abuse of discretion on its part.
Even if the trial court had incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the
petitioners, it only committed an error of judgment, and not one of
jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by a petition
for certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in.

As regards Sally Go's assertion that she had been denied due
process, an evaluation of the records of the case proves that nothing can be
further from the tmth. Jurisprudence dictates that in order for a decision of
the trial court to be declared null and void for lack of due process, it must be
shown that a party was deprived of his opportunity to be heard. Sally Go
cannot deny that she was given ample opportunity to present her
witnesses and her evidence against petitioners. Thus, her claim that she
was denied due process is unavailing. 27 (Emphases supplied)

25
Id at621-623.
26
675 Phil. 656 (2011).
27
Id at 664-669.

I
Decision 13 G.R. No. 205275

In Burgos, Jr. v. Spouses Naval, 28 therein private complainant lacks

standing to file a petition for certiorari before the CA, without conformity of
the OSG, to question the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa through
falsification of public documents on the ground of prescription, thus:

In this case, records show that Burgos's petition for certiorari x

x x sought for the reinstatement of the Information and/or a ruling
that the crime has not yet prescribed. Accordingly, the same was not
intended to merely preserve his interest in the civil aspect of the case.
Thus, as his certiorari petition was filed seeking for relief/s in relation
to the criminal aspect of the case, it is necessary that the same be filed
with the authorization of the OSG, which, by law, is the proper
representative of the People, the real party in interest in the criminal
proceedings. As the CA aptly noted, "[t]o this date, the [OSG] as
appellant's counsel of the [People] has not consented to the filing of the
present suit." There being no authorization given - as his request to the
OSG filed on April 10, 2015 was not shown to have been granted -
the certiorari petition was rightfully dismissed. 29 (Emphases supplied,
citations and underscoring omitted)

In Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Reyes, 30 therein private

complainant has no personality to file a petition for certiorari before the RTC
to annul the Municipal Trial Court's (MTC) decision acquitting the accused
of the crime of attempted theft. In that case, the private complainant assails
the admissibility of evidence which only the State may question, to wit:

At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner lacked authority in

filing a special civil action for certiorari with the R TC to seek the
annulment of the decision of the MTC which acquitted herein respondents
from the crime of attempted theft.

xxxx

Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that 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. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an
acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever
legally feasible, only by the State through the Solicitor General. As a rule,
only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on
appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not undertake such
appeal.

In its petition for certiorari filed with the RTC, petitioner seeks the
annulment of the MTC decision acquitting herein respondents. In so doing,
petitioner raises issues on the admissibility of evidence which it
submitted to prove the guilt of the accused. These issues necessarily
require a review of the ,~riminal aspect of the case and, as such, is
prohibited. As discussed above, only the State, and not herein petitioner,

28
786 Phil. 881 (2016).
29
Id. at 889-890.
30
G.R. No. 236686, February 5, 2020.

j
 14 G.R. No. 26'527'.? ',
Decision

who is the private offended party, may question the criminal aspect of the
case.

In any event, even granting that petitioner has the requisite authority
to question the subject RTC Decision, [the] Court, after a careful review
of the arguments of the parties, finds no error in the questioned
Decision of the RTC. 31 (Emphases supplied)

In JCLV Realty & Development Corp. v. Mangali, 32 therein private

complainant lacks standing to file a petition for certiorari before the CA,
without consent of the OSG, assailing the grant of demurrer to evidence
because the argument centered on the identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime of robbery, viz.:

The above cases raised issues that necessarily require a review

of the criminal aspect of the proceedings. In the same manner, JCL V
Realty are praying for reliefs which pertain to the criminal aspect of
the case. Foremost, the arguments in the petition for certiorari are
centered on Mangali's identification as the perpetrator of the crime.
Secondly, JCLV Realty prayed that the March 30, 2017 Order be "annulled,
reversed and set aside and that a new one [will] be rendered denying the
[accused'} Demurrer to Evidence." Lastly, nowhere in the petition did
JCLV Realty discuss Mangali's civil liability. In contrast, it is ultimately
seeking the reinstatement of the criminal case against Mangali.

xxxx

In this case, we find that JCL V Realty was not deprived of due
process. Notably, JCL V Realty participated in the proceedings and
presented evidence until the prosecution rested its case. The prosecution
likewise opposed the demurrer. On this point, there is no denial of due
process especially when the parties are granted an opportunity to be heard,
either through verbal arguments or pleadings. Also, the RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the case on a ground
not raised in the demurrer to evidence, i.e., the prosecution failed to ,;,
positively identify the accused. It is settled that the identity of the offender
is indispensably entwined to the commission of the crime. The first duty of
the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to establish the identity of the
criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be proven, there can
be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal. 33 (Emphases
supplied; citation omitted)

The Court invariably ruled in these cases that the private offended
parties have no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari,
without the OSG's intervention, when the issues involved the criminal aspect
of the case or the right to prosecute which exclusively pertain to the People,
i.e. existence ofprobable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction, elements of
the offense, prescription, admissibility ofevidence, identity of the perpetrator
of the crime, and other questions that will require a review of the substantive
merits of the criminal proceedings or cause the reinstatement of the criminal
31 Id.
32
G.R. No. 236618, August 27, 2020.
33 Id.

t
Decision 15 G.R. No. 2,;_· 5275

action or meddle with the prosecution of the offense. Moreover, the assailed
judgments or orders were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion or
rendered in violation of the parties' right to due process.

There are divergent rulings allowing

the private complainant to question
judgments and orders in criminal
proceedings without the OSG's
intervention.

As discussed earlier, the private complainant's interest is limited only

to the civil aspect of the case. Only the OSG may question before the SC and
the CA matters involving the criminal aspect of the case. Yet, there are
instances where the Court allowed the private complainant to file an appeal or
a petition for certiorari, without the OSG's participation, questioning the
acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and interlocutory
orders rendered in the criminal proceedings.

Foremost, the Court recognized that private complainants have legal

standing to question the acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the criminal
case equivalent to an acquittal only through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denial of due process rendering
the judgment void. In People v. Judge Santiago (Santiago ), 34 therein private
complainant filed a petition for certiorari to this Court on the ground that the
trial court acquitted the accused of violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
772 or the Anti-Squatting Law without trial on the merits despite the
conflicting positions of the parties. The Court ruled that the acquittal is a
nullity for want of due process because the trial court deprived the prosecution
of an opportunity to present evidence. Also, we declared that the victim can
avail the remedy of certiorari to question the validity of acquittal, thus:

No doubt, the acquittal of the accused is a nullity for want of due

process. The prosecution was not given the opportunity to present its
evidence or even to rebut the representations of the accused. The
prosecution is as much entitled to due process as the accused in a criminal
case.

xxxx

In this case, the prosecution ,vas deprived of an opportunity to

prosecute and prove its case. The decision that was rendered in disregard of
such imperative is void for lack of jurisdiction. It was not a court of
competent jurisdiction when it precipitately rendered a decision of acquittal
after a pre-trial. A trial should follow a pre-trial. That is the mandate of the
rules. Obviously, double jeopardy has not set in in this case.

I
34
255 Phil. 851 (1989).
Decision 16 G.R. No. 2Q5275 ,

The question as to whether or not U.P., as the private offended

party, can file this special civil action for certiorari questioning the validity
of said decision of the trial court should be answered in the affirmative.

It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party

is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution
of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for
the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if
there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may
be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only
the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on
appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such
appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the
civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65

of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by
the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State
and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has
an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the
action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be
prosecuted in [the] name of said complainant. 35 (Emphases supplied;
citations omitted)

In Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals (Dela Rosa), 36 the Court, c1tmg

Santiago, sustained therein private complainant's right to file a petition for
certiorari before the CA, without the OSG's intervention, assailing the
dismissal of a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 or
the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law. In that case, the trial court's dismissal of the
cases on the supposed violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial was
capricious and unwarranted, viz.:

x x x. The postponement of this trial date would not in any way have
prejudiced the accused considering that accused himself as stated earlier is
guilty of delay. The more prudent thing would have been for the trial court
to reset the case to another date to give the prosecution another opportunity
to present its case. The trial court's dismissal of the case on the ground
that the petitioner is entitled to a speedy trial is capricious and
unwarranted under the circumstances obtaining in this case.

xxxx

In the case of People vs. Santiago, [the] Court said:

xxxx

35
Id. at 860-862,
36
323 Phil. 596 (1996),

I
Decision 17 G.R. No. 205275

x x x The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect

of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioning the decision or action of the· respondent
court on jurisdictional grounds. x x x

In the instant case, the recourse of the complainant to the

respondent Court was therefore proper since it was brought in his own
name and not in that of the People of the Philippines. That the said
proceedings benefited the People is not a reversible error. Neither does it
constitute grave abuse of discretion. There being no violation of the double
jeopardy doctrine, the prosecution of the case may still resume in the trial
court, as decided by the Court of Appeals. 37 (Emphases supplied; citation
omitted).

Further, the Court acknowledged the personality of private

complainants to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the
decisions and orders dismissing the criminal action not equivalent to an
acquittal, i.e. dismissal of criminal cases because of want of probable cause or
quashal of the information due to improper venue or insufficiency of the
information. 38 In Perez v. Hagonoy, Rural Bank Inc. (Perez) 39 the trial court
dismissed the criminal charge for estafa through falsification of commercial
documents against the accused based solely on the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice. Therein private complainant moved for reconsideration.
However, the trial court denied the motion because the private complainant
had no personality to question the dismissal of the criminal charge. The
private complainant elevated the case to the CA through a petition for
certiorari. The CA found grave abuse of discretion and directed the trial court
to resolve the merits of the private complainant's motion for reconsideration.
The Court affirmed the CA's findings that the trial court acted with grave
abuse of discretion because it did not make an independent evaluation of the
merits of the case. Also, citing Dela Rosa, We ruled that therein private
complainant has the personality to move for consideration and subsequently
file a petition for certiorari to question the dismissal of the criminal charges,
thus:

First. Judge Masadao acted with grave abuse of discretion in

granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the criminal charges
against the petitioner on the basis solely of the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice.

xxxx

37
Id. at 603-606.
38
People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 732-733 (1949). In this case, the Court explained that "[ d]ismissal
te1minates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or
the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc. xx x. If the prosecution
fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the case is
dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could not be again
prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case the defendant
may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction."
39
384 Phil. 322 (2000).

if
Decision 18 G.R. No. 20527?:

x x x. That the trial judge did not make an independent evaluation or

assessment of the merits of the case is apparent from the foregoing order.
Judge Masadao's reliance on the prosecutor's averment that the Secretary
of Justice had recommended the dismissal of the case against the petitioner
was, to say the least an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction
to determine a prima facie case, in blatant violation of this Court's
pronouncement in Crespo v. ~Mogul as reiterated in the later case
of Martinez v. Court ofAppeals x x x

xxxx

Second. The private respondent, as private complainant, had

legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the
petitioner on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, we held

that:

"In a special civil action for certiorari filed under

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged
that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional
grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by
the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are
the State and the private offended party or complainant. The
complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case
so he may file such special civil action questioning the
decision or action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the complainant should
not bring the action in the name of the People of the
Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of
the said complainant."

Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People
or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a
special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal
proceedings before the courts of law.

xxxx

It follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in this case

may file a special civil action for certiorari, then with more reason does
it have legal personality to move for a reconsideration of the order of
the trial court dismissing the criminal charges against tbc petitioner. In
fact, as a general rule, a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an
opportunity to correct its assigned errors. 40 (Emphases and italics supplied;
underscoring supplied and citation omitted)

40
Id. at 331-337.

r
Decision 19 G.R. No. 205275

In David v. Marquez (David) 41 the private complainant filed a petition

for certiorari to the CA questioning the order of the trial court which quashed
the information for estafa and illegal recruitment on the supposed ground of
improper venue. The CA granted the petition and reinstated the information.
The Court affirmed the CA' s findings that the trial court is guilty of grave
abuse of discretion. Also, the private complainant has the legal personality to
file a petition for certiorari on her own and not through the OSG, viz.:

We are, thus, one with the CA in finding that the RTC of Manila
committed grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a palpable error, in
ordering the quashal of the Informations (sic). The express provision of
the law is clear that the filing of criminal actions arising from illegal
recruitment before the R TC of the province or city where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense is allowed. It
goes without saying that the dismissal of the case on [the] wrong ground,
indeed, deprived the prosecution, as well as the respondent as complainant,
of their day in court.

xxxx

xx x There is no question that, generally, the prosecution cannot appeal or

bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant
in a criminal case due to the final and executory nature of a judgment of
acquittal and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Despite acquittal, however, the offended party or the accused may
appeal, but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision.

xxxx

Moreover, there have been occasions when [the] Court has allowed
the offended party to pursue the criminal action on his/her own behalf, as
when there is a denial of due process as in this case. Indeed, the right of
offended parties to appeal or question an order of the trial court which
deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only
limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so
would place the accused in double jeopardy.

xxxx

In fine, the dismissal of the cases below was patently erroneous

and as such, invalid for lack of fundamental requisite, that is, due
process. For this reason, [the] Court finds the recourse of the
respondent to the CA proper despite it being brought on her own and
not through the OSG. 42 (Emphases supplied; citation omitted)

In Flores v. Hon. Joven (Flores), 43 the trial comt granted the motion to
quash information for rape because the accused was not one of those
identified by the victim to have abused her. Jvioreover, the information failed
to show the particular participation of the accused in the crime. Aggrieved, the
victim elevated the case to the Court through a petition for certiorari. The

41
810Phil.187(2017).
42
Id. at 200-204.
43
442 PhiL 576 (2002).
Decision 20 G.R. No. 20527~

Court, citing Perez, sustained the personality of the victim to file the petition
and reinstated the criminal case because the trial court committed grave abuse
of discretion, thus:

Anent the issue whether or not the petitioner has the personality or
the right to file herein petition for certiorari --- We rule in the affirmative.
A perusal of the petition filed in this case shows that petitioner herself
caused the preparation and filing of the present petition and filed the same
through the private prosecutor. It is beyond question that petitioner has
the right or personality to file the petition, through her private
prosecutors, questioning the dismissal of the criminal case against
respondent Navarro. For obvious reasons, the public prosecutors who
filed the motion to dismiss which was granted by the trial court would not
initiate the action.

xxxx

More recently, in Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., we held that
the private respondent therein, as private complainant, has legal personality
to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioner on the
ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is so because a special civil
action for certiorari may be filed by the persons aggrieved, which, in a
criminal case, are the State and the private offended party or complainant.
Having an interest in the civil aspect of the case, the complainant may
file such action, in his name, questioning the decision or action of the
respondent court on jurisdictional grounds.

xxxx

The Court cannot fathom how the trial court concluded that
respondent Navarro was not one of those identified by petitioner as one of
her perpetrators when the Sworn Statement executed by petitioner, as well
as her response to the clarificatory questions of the Fiscal, not only narrated
the facts and circumstances surrounding her ordeal, but also explicitly and
categorically identified respondent Navarro and his other co-accused as her
alleged rapists.

xxxx

In this case, the Information sufficiently alleged that respondent

Emmanuel Navarro, by means uf force, had sexual intercourse with
petitioner against her will. 1t contained all the essential elements of rape
as defined by law. The allegations describe the offense with sufficient
particularity such that respondent Navarro will fully understand what he is
being charged with. The Infonnation also sufficiently alleged respondent
Navarro's criminal culpability/liability for the crime, to wit: "accused
EMMANUEL NAV;\RRO has (sic) sexual intercourse with one Joan
Flores, against the latters (sic) will." This is based on petitioner's own
account of the incident wherein she stated that her perpetrators, including
respondent Navarro, took turn~ in sexually abusing her. 44 (Emphases
supplied; citations omitted)

44
Id. at 583- 588.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 205275

In Morillo v. People (Morillo ), 45 however, the Court allowed therein -

private complainant to appeal, without the OSG's participation, the dismissal
of the criminal cases due to improper venue in view of the unique
circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice. In that case,
both the RTC and the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicted the accused
on two counts of violation ofB.P. Big. 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.
Yet, the CA dismissed the criminal cases without prejudice due to improper
venue. Aggrieved, the private complainant filed a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. For its paii, the OSG agreed
with the CA's stance that the venue was improperly laid. This Court held that
the CA erred in dismissing the case for improper venue and sustained the
private complainant's legal standing to file the petition, to wit:

Corollary, a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower
court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of
judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the
assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion,
granting the aggrieved party's prayer is not tantamount to putting the
accused in double jeopardy, in violation of the general rule that the
prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment
rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. This is because a
judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the
prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy be violated.

Thus, it may be argued that since the instant petition is one for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not under Rule
65, and was not filed by the OSG representing the interest of the Republic,
the same should be summarily dismissed. The unique and special
circumstances attendant in the instant petition, however, justify an
adjudication by the Court on the merits and not solely on technical
grounds.

First of all, the Court stresses that the appellate court's dismissal of
the case is not an acquittal of respondent. x xx

xxxx

Thus, when the appellate court herein dismissed the instant case on
the ground that the Me TC lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged, it
did not decide the same on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of
respondent's guilt or innocence based on the evidence proffered by the
prosecution. The appellate court merely dismissed the case on the
erroneous reasoning that none of the elements of BP 22 was committed
within the lower court's jurisdiction, and not because of any finding that the
evidence failed to show respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Clearly, therefore, such dismissal did not operate as an acquittal, which, as
previously discussed, may be repudiated only by a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing a grave abuse or
discretion.
45
775Phil.192(2015).

j-.
(j"':
Decision 22 G.R. No. 205275: ·

Thus, petitioner's resort to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be

struck down as improper. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45, the parties raise only questions oflaw because the Court, in its exercise
of its power ofreview, is not a trier of facts. There is a question oflaw when
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts
and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the parties-litigants.xx x

xxxx

More importantly, moreover, since the dismissal of the instant case

cannot be considered as an acquittal of respondent herein, he cannot
likewise claim that his constitutional right to protection against double
jeopardy will be violated.

xxxx

As to the issue of petitioner's legal standing to file the instant

petition in the absence of the OSG's participation, the circumstances herein
warrant the Court's consideration.xx x

xxxx

x x x the Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, it must give
due course to the instant petition and consequently rule on the merits of the
same. The circumstances surrounding this case left petitioner
with no other suitable recourse but to appeal the case herself. Not only
was there an absence of support from the OSG, said government office
also took a position in contrast to the rights and iltlterests of petitioner.
Moreover, as discussed above, the arguments which ran counter to
petitioner's interest as well as the grounds used to support them were
simply inapplicable to the issue at hand. In fact, these erroneous
contentions were adopted by the appellate court in their entirety,
dismissing the instant case in a manner not in accord with law and
applicable jurisprudence. For the Court, now, to apply procedural rules in
their strict and literal sense by similarly dismissing, as the CA had,
petitioner's action poses serious consequences tantamount to a miscarriage
of justice. x x x46 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

Moreover, there are instances where the Court recognized the

personality of the private complainant to question interlocutory orders in
criminal proceedings. Obviously, these interlocutory orders do not involve the
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the criminal case such as orders
suspending the criminal case due to a prejudicial question, giving due course
to the notice of appeal, or granting bail. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane
(Rodriguez), 47 the Municipal Trial Court (IVITC) suspended the criminal
proceedings for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 or the Anti--Bouncing Checks Law
due to a prejudicial question posed on a separate pending civil case. Therein
private complainant fi]ed a petition for certiorari to the RTC ascribing grave
abuse of discretion to the MTC. However, the RTC dismissed the petition for
lack of conformity of the public prosecutor. Aggrieved, the private
46
Id. at 211-216.
47
527 Phil. 691 (2006).

I
Decision 23 G.R. No. 205275

complainant elevated the case to the Court through a petition for review under
Rule 45. The Court granted the appeal and reinstated the petition for
certiorari filed before the RTC. Also, citing Dela Rosa, the Court sustained
the personality of the private complainant to file a petition for certiorari, to
wit:

A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved

party alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. In a long line of cases, [the] Court
construed the term "aggrieved parties" to include the State and the private
offended party or complainant.

xxxx

It was further held in De la Rosa that the complainant has such

an interest in the civil aspect of the case that he may file a special civil
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds.

xxxx

The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the criminal case is

dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the
criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in
behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to question
such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. x x
x However, it should be remembered that the order which herein
petitioner seeks to assail is not one dismissing the case or acquitting
respondents. Hence, there is no limitation to the capacity of the private
complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order.

xxxx

In this case, there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an

interest in the litigation of the civil aspect of the case against
respondents. Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. Hence, the possible
conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for
damages in favor of petitioner. The suspension of the criminal case
which petitioner decries would necessarily cause delay in the resolution
of the civil aspect of the said case which precisely is the interest and
concern of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from the
courts. Significantly, under the present Rules of Court, complainants
in B.P. 22 cases have to pay filing fees upon the commencement of such
cases in court to protect their interest. 48 (Emphases supplied; citations
omitted).

In Salvador v. Chua (Salvador), 49 the private complainant filed a

petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the trial comt's orders which
granted the notice of appeal of the accused from his conviction for estafa and

48
Id. at 696-698.
49

r
764 Phil. 244 (2015).
Decision 24 G.R. No. 205275 .

allowed him to post bail. The CA ruled that the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion because the accused's conviction was already final and
immutable. The Court affirmed the CA's findings and sustained the
personality of the private complainant to file a·petition for certiorari, thus:

Yet, although the respondent's A1otion for Execution had already

been granted by the RTC, the CA still held that she continued to have an
interestin the litigation, observing as follows:

xx x [Wlith the public respondents' questioned Orders

both granting him leave to appeal the Decision dated
March 30, 2011, the whole case is rendered open for
review by Us, including the civil aspect of the case. An
appeal throws the case open for review. Under Section
11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals
may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment. An appeal
in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any
question, including one not raised by the parties.

A mere cursory reading of the herein Petition will

readily reveal that petitioner desires to question the propriety
of public respondents' ruling giving due course to private
respondent's appeal and subsequently allowing him to post
bail. We do not, however, perceive the same as a procedural
misstep thus divesting the petitioner the personality to file
the instant Petition.

xxxx

We affirm the CA's holding on the respondent's legal standing to

institute the special civil action for certiorari in order to annul the
questioned orders of the RTC. For sure, her interest in the criminal case did
not end upon the granting of her Motion for Execution because the
questioned orders opened the possibility of defeating the judgment in her
favor should the CA reverse or modify his conviction. She remained an
aggrieved party like the State in every sense, and, consequently, she
had as much right as anyone else in the criminal proceedings to adopt
and to take the necessary procedural steps within the bounds of
the Rules of Court to serve and protect her substantial interest.
Although it is true that she could be represented by the OSG if it wanted to,
she would be reckless at that point to be disinterested in the appellate
proceedings. Moreover, we would violate her fundar:aental right to due
process of Jaw if we were to deny her the opportm1ity to assail and set aside
the improperly resurrected appeal of the petitioner. 50 (Emphases supplied;
italics in the original)

In Narciso v. Sta . .Romana--Cruz (Narcisco), 51 the sister of the parricide

victim filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the order of the
trial court granting the accused's motion for bail. The CA held that the trial
court is guilty of grave abuse of discretion since bail cannot be allowed
without a prior hearing to a person charged with an offense punishable with

50
Id. at 252-254.
51
385 Phil. 208 (2000).
Decision 25 G.R. No. 205275

reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the CA's findings and sustained the
personality of the victim's sister to file the petition giving due regard to the
ends of substantial justice, thus:

The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that there was no basis for
such finding, since no hearing had been conducted on the application for
bail - summary or otherwise. The appellate court found that only ten
minutes had elapsed between tbe filing of the Motion by the accused
and the Order granting bail, a lapse of time that could not be deemed
sufficient for the trial court to receive and evaluate any evidence. We
agree with the CA.

xxxx

Petitioner attacks respondent's legal standing to file the Petition

for Certiorari before the appellate court, maintaining that oniy the public
prosecutor or the solicitor general may challenge the assailed Order.

xxxx

The ends of substantial justice indeed require the affirmation of the

appellate court's ruling on this point. Clearly, the assailed Order of Judge
Santiago was issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. A void order is no order at all. It cannot confer any right
or be the source of any relief. [The] Court is not merely a court of law;
it is likewise a court of justice.

To rule othe1vvise would leave the private respondent without any

recourse to rectify the public injustice brought about by the trial court's
Order, leaving her with only the standing to file administrative charges for
ignorance of the law against the judge and the prosecutor. A party cannot be
left without recourse to address a substantive issue in law. 52 (Emphases
supplied; citations omitted))

The divergent rulings do not grant

the private complainant a blanket
authority to question judgments and
orders in criminal proceedings
without the OSG's intervention.

On this point, the Comi clarifies that the pronouncements in Santiago,

Dela Rosa, Perez, David, Flores, lvforillo, Rodriguez, Salvador, and Narciso
cannot be construed as a blarJ<et grant of legal personality to private
complainants to question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings on
grounds of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process. 53 The Court did
not abandon the well-established distinction in our legal system that the
People, through the OSG, has legal interest over the criminal aspect of the
proceedings, whereas the private complainant has legal interest over the civil
aspect of the case.

52
Id.at217-223.
53
See Reflection of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjm11in S. Caguioa, p. 9.
 Decision 26 G.R. No. 205275: ,

The decisions in Santiago, Dela Rosa and Perez explicitly noted that
the private complainant "has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he
may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the
respondent court on jurisdictional grounds." Similarly, David pointed out
that despite the acquittal, the offended party may appeal "but only with
respect to the civil aspect of the decision, '' while Flores reiterated that
"[h]aving an interest in the civil aspect of the case, the complainant may file
such action, in his name, questioning the decision or action of the respondent
court on jurisdictional grounds. " The rule remains that only the OSG may
question before the SC and the CA matters involving the criminal aspect of
the case. Hence, the rulings in Perez, David, and Flores must be correlated
with the decisions discussed earlier in Jimenez, Anlud Metal Recycling Corp.,
and Piccio that private complainants cannot question orders dismissing
criminal cases for want of probable cause and quashal of the infonnation due
to improper venue or insufficiency of the allegation without the OSG's
participation given that these issues pertain to the criminal aspect of the case
and the right to prosecute. Furthermore, the interpretation of the rulings in
Dela Rosa and Flores was made clear in Padillo v. Apas 54 stating that
"[w]hile it is settled that a private complainant, in his or her own name, has
the right or personality to file through a private prosecutor a petition
for certiorari questioning the dismissal of a criminal case, such right or '.-
personality is premised on his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case."
Indeed, the Court in the subsequent cases of Rodriguez and Salvador aptly
explained how private complainants maintained their interests in the civil
aspect of the cases allowing them to assail orders in the criminal proceedings.
Lastly, the Morillo and Narciso rulings were rendered based on exceptional
circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice.

More importantly, the case law allowing private complainants to

question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings should not be
stretched to the degree of violating the mandate of the Administrative Code as
to the nature and extent of the OSG's power and authority. 55 The pertinent
provision of the substantive law is clear that the OSG shall "[r]epresent the
Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings; x xx" As such, the OSG must be given the opportunity to be
heard on how the remedies that private complainants sought before the SC
and the CA might affect the interest of the People in the criminal aspect of the
56
case. To be sure, there ai-e several instances where the Court required the
OSG to submit a comment instead of dismissing the appeal or petition for
certiorari filed by private complainants que~tioning decisions or orders in
criminal proceedings.

In People v. Court cf Appeals, 57 the v1ctnn filed a pet1t10n for

certiorari before the Couit at tbe instance of her private counsel to question
54
521 Phil 179 (2006).
:: Reflections of Just!ce ,~lfredo Benjami1: S, Caguim,,:, p. 9.
Reflections of Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernahe . i). , .
57
755 Phil. 80 (2015). .

J
Decision 27 G.R. No. 205275

the CA's decision acquitting the accused from the crime of rape. The Court
held that the victim has legal standing to file the petition and reversed the
judgment of acquittal because the CA merely relied on the evidence of the
defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution. In any event, the OSG
joined the victim's cause in its comment fulfilling the requirement that all
criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor, to wit:

Here, AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, albeit at the
instance of her private counsel, primarily imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CA when it acquitted private respondents. As
the aggrieved party, AAA clearly has the right to bring the action in
her name and maintain the criminal prosecution. She has an immense
interest in obtaining justice in the case precisely because she is the
subject of the violation. x x x. In any event, the OSG joins petitioner's
cause in its Comment, thereby fulfilling the requirement that all criminal
actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.

xxxx

The Court finds that the petitioner has sufficiently discharged the
burden of proving that the respondent appellate court committed grave
abuse of discretion in acquitting private respondents.

It appears that in reaching its judgment, the CA merely relied

on the evidence presented by the defense and utterly disregarded tbat
of the prosecution. x x x

xxxx

x x x. Thus, the CA's blatant disregard of material prosecution

evidence and outward bias in favor of that of the defense constitutes
grave abuse of discretion resulting in violation of petitioner's right to
due process. 58 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

In Merciales v. Court ofAppeals, 59 the trial court granted the demurrer

evidence and acquitted the accused of the crime of rape. The mother of the
deceased victim filed a petition for am1ulment of judgment before the CA but
was dismissed, The mother of the victim elevated the case to the Court
ascribing reversible error on the part of the CA in refusing to nullifJ the trial
court's order granting the demurrer. At the oral argument, the OSG joined the
petitioner's cause to prevent a miscmTiage of justice. This mooted the issue of
the legal standing of the victim's mother to question a judgment of acquittal.
Yet, the Court En Banc declared that the mother of the victim has an interest
in the maintenance of the criminal prosecution. Also, the accused cam10t
validly invoke their right against double jeopardy since both the prosecutor
and the trial court were guilty of serious nonfoasance depriving the offended
party of her day in court, to 11vit:

58
Id. at 99-102.
59
429 Phil. 70 (2002).
Decision 28 G.R. No. 205275

It is true that a private complainant carmot bring an action

questioning a judgment of acquittal, except insofar as the civil aspect of the
criminal case is concerned. In the case at bar, we agree with petitioner [that]
this issue was rendered moot when the Solicitor General, in representation
of the People, changed his position and joined the cause of petitioner, thus
fulfilling the requirement that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the public prosecutor.

In any event, petitioner has an interest in the maintenance of the

criminal prosecution, being the mother of tbe deceased rape victim.
The right of offended parties to appeal an order of the trial court which
deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only
limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so
would place the accused in double jeopardy.

xxxx

It is clear from the foregoing that the public prosecutor was

guilty of serious nonfeasance. xx x

xxxx

In the case at bar, the public prosecutor knew that he had not
presented sufficient evidence to convict the accused. Yet, despite repeated
moves by the accused for the trial court to continue hearing the case, he
deliberately failed to present an available witness and thereby allowed the
comi to declare that the prosecution has rested its case. In this sense, he was
remiss in his duty to protect the interest of the offended parties. More
specifically, the public prosecutor in this case was guilty of blatant error and
abuse of discretion, thereby causing prejudice to the offended party. Indeed,
the family of the deceased victim, x x x, could do nothing during the
proceedings, having entrusted the conduct of the case in the hands of the
said prosecutor. All they could do was helplessly watch as the public
prosecutor, who was under legal obligation to pursue the action on their
behalf, renege on that obligation and refuse to perform his sworn duty.

xx x Moreover, the public prosecutor violated his bounden duty to

protect the interest of the offended party, at least insofar as the
criminal aspect is concerned. x x x

Likewise guilty for serious :uonfeasance was the trial court.

Notwithstanding its knowledge that the evidence for the prosecution was
insufficient to convict, especially after the public prosecutor tenaciously
insisted on utilizing Nuada as state witness, the trial court passively
watched as the public prosecutor bungled the case. The trial court was well
aware of the nature of the testimonies of the seven prosecution witnesses
that have so far been presented. Given this circumstance, the trial
court, motu proprio, should have called additional witnesses for the
purpose of questioning them himsdf in order to satisfy his mind with
reference to particular facts or issues involved in the case.

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that petitioner was deprived

of her day in court Tndeed, it .is not only the State, but more so the
offended party, that is entitled to· due process in criminal cases_ Inasmuch
Decision 29 G.R. No. 205275

as the acquittal of the accused by the court a quo was done without
regard to due process of law, the same is null and void. It is as if there
was no acquittal at all, and the same cannot constitute a claim for
double jeopardy.

xxxx

Otherwise put, the dismissal of the case below was invalid for lack
of a fundamental prerequisite, that is, due process. In rendering the
judgment of dismissal, the trial judge in this case acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, for a judgment which is void for lack of due process is
equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, "jurisdiction" is the
right to hear and determine, not to determine without hearing.

Lack of jurisdiction is one of the grounds for the annulment by

the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions of
Regional Trial Courts. Hence, the remedy taken by petitioner before
the Court of Appeals was correct. 60 (Emphases supplied; citations
omitted) ·

In Labaro v. Hon. Panay, 61 therein private complainant filed a petition

for certiorari assailing the trial court's order admitting the accused for bail
who was charged with a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua. The Court
required the OSG to file its comment who then complied and agreed with the
private complainant. The Court granted the petition and set aside the order
granting bail because it was rendered without a summary of the evidence and
a finding on whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Moreover, the Court held
that the OSG's comment has in effect ratified and adopted as its own the
petition for the People of the Philippines. Likewise, in Montanez v.
Cipriano, 62 therein private complainant filed a petition for review on
certiorari questioning the trial court's order that granted the accused's motion
to quash the information. The Court required the OSG to file a comment,
which it did, praying that the petition be granted. The Court set aside the trial
court's order quashing the information and ruled that the OSG's comment
ratified the petition. In People v. Judge Nano, 63 the Court took cognizance of
the private complainant's petition for certiorari because of the gravity of the
error committed by the judge against the prosecution resulting in denial of due
process. Aside from the denial of due process, the OSG also manifested to
adopt the petition as if filed by its office, thus:.

The petition being defective in form, the Court could have

summarily dismissed the case for having been filed merely by private
counsel for the offended paiiies, though with the confom1ity of the
provincial prosecutor, and not by the Solicitor General. \Vhile it is the
public prosecutor who represents the People in criminal cases before the
trial courts, it is only the Solicitor General that is authorized to bring or
defend actions in behalf of the People or Republic of the Philippines once
the case is brought up before this Court or the Comi of Appeals x x x

60
Id. at 77-82.
61
360 Phil. 102 (1998),
62
697 Phil. 586 (2012).
63
282 Phil. 164 (1992}.

I
Decision 30 G.R. No. 205275

Defective as it is, the Court, nevertheless, took cognizance of the

petition in view of the gravity of the error allegedly committed by the
respondent judge against the prosecution -- denial of due process - as
well a:s the manifestation and motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General praying that the instant petition be treated as if filed by the
said office. In view thereof, We now consider the People as the sole
petitioner in the case duly represented by the Solicitor General. Payment of
legal fees is therefore no longer necessary in accordance with Sec. 16, Rule
141 of the Rules of Court. 64 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, private complainants filed a petition for certiorari before

the CA without the OSG's prior conformity. They question the Joint Orders
acquitting Mamerto for failure to meet the standard set forth in Section 14,
A1iicle VIII of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mamerto argued that
private complainants cannot bring an action to review a judgment of acquittal
without offending the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. Given
the divergent decisions on the private complainant's legal standing in a
criminal case, private complainants cannot be faulted when they relied on
jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the_ case through a
petition for certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of
due process. Hence, the Court should not dismiss their remedy. In any event,
the OSG joined the cause of private complainants, and gave its conformity to
the petition for certiorari that the private complainants filed before the CA.
To avoid further delay, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to
resolve the issues of whether the CA correctly ruled·that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the constitutional requirement
that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based, and whether there is a violation of Mamerto' s right against
double jeopardy.

The RTC is guilty of grave abuse of

discretion when it rendered the Joint
Orders acquitting Mamerto in
violation of Section 14, Article VIII
of the Constitution. Consequently,
Mamerto cannot claim a violation of
his right against double jeopardy.

Private complainants sufficiently established that the Joint Orders

acquitting Mamerto were rendered with grave abuse of discretion that is
arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise ofjudgment as when the
assailed order is bereft of any factual and legal justification65 or when the
disputed act of the trial court goes beyond the limits of discretion thus
effecting an injustice. 66 Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly
provides that "[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without

64
Id. at 168-l 69.
65
See Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v l'viaiadw:on, 455 PhlL 61, 71 (2003).
66
Dissenting Opinion of then Associate J1,1:;tice Clm,dio Teehankee in Chemplex (Phils,), Inc. v, Hon
Pamatian, 156 Phil. 408,457 (1974). ·

t
Decision 31 G.R. No. 205275

expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. No petition for review or motion .fc>r reconsideration of a decision of
the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the basis
therefor." In Yao v. Court ofAppeals (Yao), 67 we emphasized that the parties
to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation
of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court, viz.:

Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article

VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due
process and fair play. lt is likewise demanded by the due process clause of
the Constitution. The paiiies to a litigation should be informed of how it
was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to
the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is
rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any
justification vvhatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know
why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he
believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that docs not
dearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based
leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is
precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the
possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. x x x 68
(Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As Yao aptly
discussed, the decisions or orders issued in careless disregard of the
constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down as void.:

Tlms, we nullified or deemed to have failed to comply with

Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, a decision, resolution or
order which: contained no analysis of the evidence of the parties nor
reference to any legal basis in reaching its conclusions; contained
nothing more than a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses of both
parties; convicted the accused of libel but failed to cite any legal authority
or principle to support conclusions that the letter in question was libelous;
consisted merely of one (1) paragraph with mostly sweeping
generalizations and failed to support its conclusion of panicide; consisted
of five (5) pages, three (3) pages of which were quotations from the labor
arbiter's decision including the dispositive po1iion and barely a page (two
[2] short paragraphs of two [2] sentences each) of its own discussion or
reasoning; was merely based on the findings of another comi sans transcript
of stenographic notes; or failed to explain the factual and iegal bases for the
award of moral damages. 69 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

Verily, the CA properly struck down as a nullity the RTC's Joint

Orders which simply copied the allegations of JVlamerto in his motions for
reconsideration and memoranda followed by a conclusion "that the
prosecution miserably failed to overcome the legal presumption of innocence
of the accused beyond cavil <!f reasonable doubt". The Joint Orders are mere

67
398 Phil. 86 (2000).
68
Id. at 105-1 06.
69
Id. at 106- i 07.
Decision 32 G.R. No. 205275

recital of facts with a dispositive portion. They contained neither an analysis

of the evidence nor a reference to any legal basis for the conclusion. Thus, the
Joint Orders are void for failure to meet the standard set forth in Section 14,
Article VIII of the Constitution. 70 - It is settled that a void judgment of
acquittal has no legal effect and does not te1minate the case. 71 In People v.
Judge Bellajlor, 72 the respondent judge is guilty of grave abuse of discretion
in acquitting the accused without expressing the facts and the law on which it
is based, thus:

x x x[P]rivate respondent cannot successfully seek refuge in the assailed

resolution of respondent judge. For one thing, it was an empty judgment of
acquittal -- a bare adjudication that private respondent is not guilty of the
offense charged anchored on the mere supposition that the decision
rendered by Judge Fortun was a nullity. Indeed, respondent judge
acquitted private respondent without expressing the facts and the law
on which it is based, as required by Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution. x x x

xxxx

It is indubitable that the acquittal of private respondent was not

based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case.
Furthermore, it is a requirement of due process that the parties 1o a litigation
be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual
findings and legal justifications that led to the conclusions of the court xx x

xxxx

In view of the foregoing, we hold that respondent judge

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in nullifying the decision rendered by Judge Fortun. 73 (Emphases
supplied.)

Relatively, the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy74

attaches when the following elements concur: ( 1) the accused is charged
under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain
their conviction; (2) the' court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been
arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or
the case is dismissed without his/her consent. 75 Yet, the rule on double
jeopardy will not apply when there has been a grave abuse of discretion under
exceptional circumstances that rendered the trial court without jurisdiction. 76
As intimated earlier, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion rendering
the Joint Orders of acquittal void. On this point, we reiterate that a void

70
Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Late Spouses Entapa, 794 Phil. 526, 540 (2016). People v.
Sandiganbayan, 482 Phil. 613, 628 (2004). See also Ongson v. People, 504 Phil. 214,224 (2005).
71
Javier v. Gonzales, 803 Phil. 631, 648 (20:i7); citing People v. Judge Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289, 306
(2006).
72 303 Phil. 209 (! 994).
73
Id. at 214-218.
74
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 21.
75
Merciales v. Court ofAppeals, supra note 59 at 81.
76
People v. Alejandro, 823 Phil. 684, 692 (2018).
Decision 33 G.R. No. 205275

judgment of acquittal cannot be the source of legal rights and has no binding
effect In contemplation of law, it is non-existent as if no judgment had been
rendered at all. Thus, Mamerto's right against double jeopardy is not
violated. 77

It is an opportune time for the Court

to harmonize the case law and
formulate an edifying rule on the
private complainant's legal standing
to question judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings consistent with
its exclusive rule-making authority.

To guide the bench and the bar, these rules should be observed with
respect to the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or
orders in criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:

(1) The private complainant has the legal personality to

appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for
certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the
criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege
the specific pecuniary interest of the private offended party. The
failure to comply with this requirement may result in the denial
or dismissal of the remedy.

The reviewing court shall require the. OSG to file

comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from
notice if it appears that the resolution of the private
complainant's appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily
affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute
(i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial
jurisdiction, elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility
ofevidence, identity of the perpetrator of the crime, mod(fication
of penalty, and other questions that will require a review of the
substantive merits of the crirninal proceedings, or the
null[fication/reversal of the entfre ruling. or cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle v'v'ith the
prosecution ofthe offense, among other things). The comment of
the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the
remedy of the private offended party. The judgment: or order of
the reviewing court granting the private complainant's relief may
be set aside if rendered without affording the People, through the
OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.

(2) The private cotnplainant has no legal personality to

appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments

77
Galm an v. Sandlganbayan, 228 Phil. 42 ( l 9f{6).
Decision 34 G.R. No. 205275

or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to

prosecute, unless made with the OSG's conformity.

The private complainant must request the OSG's

conformity within the reglementary period to appeal or file .· a
petition for certiorari. The private complainant must attach the
original copy of the OSG' s conformity as proof in case the
request is granted within the reglementary period. Othe1wise, the
private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for
certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied
the request for conformity, the Comi shall dismiss the appeal or
petition for certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private
complainant.

(3) The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file

comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from
notice on the private complainant's petition for certiorari
questioning the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the
criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in criminal
proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial
of due process.

(4) These guidelines shall be prospective in application.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of

Appeals' Decision dated July 31, 2012 in CA G.R. SP No. 114771 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the criminal cases are
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for resolution of Mamerto
Austria's motion for reconsideration in accordance with Section 14, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

SO ORDERED.
Decision 3.5 G.R. No. 205275

WE CONCCJR:

UY'a.<ru
L.EH H\S vorE-

HEN A
/\.

RICAR
Associate Justice Assc ciate Justice

U!OSE~OJ>EZ
Associate Justice

'
J O ~ ~ . P .QUEZ
~.
~ssociate Justice •,;:,
A s.,o...,1a
0 • te l,.1.~~t:.~
v • i,..,e
 Decision 36 G.R. No. 205275

CERTIFICATI()N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Comi.

CERTIFIED TRUE COFY

,n, ..r,r•
L~illCer
,..,
.::;up:reme Cou.rt