In the exercise of its exclusive rule-making authority and the symbolic function to instruct the 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.
RULING
The private complainant’s interest is limited only to the civil aspect of the 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]
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]
APPLICATION
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 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 RTC 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.
Remedial Law: Excerpts of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (2022) by Mogello
In the said 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)
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 arraignment 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 standing to interpose an appeal in a criminal proceeding.[25]
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.
x x x x (end of emphasis).
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 of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction, elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, 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 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.
RE: 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.
x x x x
In this case, the prosecution was 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.
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, citing 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.
x x x x
In the case of People vs. Santiago, [the] Court said:
x x x x
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.
x x x x
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 of Appeals x x x
x x x x
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.
x x x x
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 the 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)
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 RTC 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.
x x x x
x x 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.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
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 court granted the motion to quash information for rape because the accused was not one of those identified by the victim to have abused her. Moreover, 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 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.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
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 of B.P. Blg. 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 part, 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 x x
x x x x
Thus, when the appellate court herein dismissed the instant case on the ground that the MeTC 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.
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 of law because the Court, in its exercise of its power of review, is not a trier of facts. There is a question of law 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. x x x
x x x x
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.
x x x x
In Rodriguez v. Gadiane (Rodriguez),[47] the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) 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 filed 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 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.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
NOTE
RE: 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 Court clarifies that the pronouncements in Santiago, Dela Rosa, Perez, David, Flores, Morillo, Rodriguez, Salvador, and Narciso cannot be construed as a blanket 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.
APPLICATION
(The SC deemed it proper to take cognizance of the case)
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, Article 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.
RE: 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 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 of judgment as when the assailed order is bereft of any factual and legal justification[65] 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 expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the basis therefor."
In Yao v. Court of Appeals (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. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. 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. 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 whatsoever 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 does not clearly 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)
Verily, the CA properly struck down as a nullity the RTC's Joint Orders which simply copied the allegations of Mamerto 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 of reasonable doubt". The Joint Orders are mere 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 terminate the case.[71] In People v. Judge Bellaflor,[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:
4x 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
x x x x
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 to 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 x x x
x x x x
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 jeopardy[74] 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 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]
RE: 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 of evidence, identity of the perpetrator of the crime, modification of penalty, and other questions that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal proceedings, or the nullification/reversal of the entire ruling, or cause the reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle with the prosecution of the 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 complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments 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. Otherwise, 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 Court 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.
FOOTNOTES
Read HERE
FOLLOW US!
❤️ SUPPORT
⚖️ BLOG
🛒 SHOP
Comments