Supreme Court of the Philippines
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
February 4, 2023
SC Sets Rules on When Private Offended Party Can Appeal
Judgments, Orders in Criminal Proceedings
The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines on the legal standing of
private offended parties when questioning judgments or orders in criminal
proceedings.
In a 36-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme
Court En Bane denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by Mamerto Austria
challenging the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which overturned the
Regional Trial Court's (RTC) acquittal of Austria on criminal charges of acts of
lasciviousness.
In 2006, the RTC convicted Austria, a public school teacher, of five
counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-year old female students
(‘private complainants’), Austria’s conviction, however, was reversed when a
new presiding judge granted Austria’s motion for reconsideration.
After the private complainants’ own motion for reconsideration was.
denied, they elevated the case to the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the RTC. The CA ruled in favor of the private complainants, finding
that the RTC disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must
express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The
CA also held that as the assailed RTC orders were void, double jeopardy did
not attach. Nullifying the RIC’s orders, the CA ruled that the previous
decision convicting Austria be reinstated.
This prompted Austria to challenge the appellate court’s ruling before
the Supreme Court, invoking his right against double jeopardy and claiming
that the private complainants had no legal personality to question his
acquittal. The Supreme Court then required the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) to file a comment on the private complainants’ legal standing in a
criminal case.
In denying Austria’s petition, the High Court reviewed existing
jurisprudence on the issue of the legal personality of a private offended party
in criminal proceedings.
Harmonizing the divergent doctrines laid down in previous decisions,
the Court formulated the following guidelines in determining the legal
personality of a private offended party in questioning criminal judgments or
orders:
1. As to the civil liability of the accused, the private complainant has the
legal personality to appeal. The private offended party's specific
pecuniary interest should be alleged in the appeal or petition for
certiorari.
If such appeal or petition necessarily affects the criminal aspect of the
case or the right to prosecute, the reviewing court shall require the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a comment within a non-
extendible period of 30 days from notice. The OSG’s comment muststate whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private
complainant. If the OSG is not given an opportunity to comment, the
private complainant's relief may be set aside.
2. As to the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, the
private complainant has no legal personality to appeal without the
conformity of the OSG, to be requested by the private complainant
within the period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. If the OSG’s
conformity is not granted within such period, the private complainant
must allege in his or her appeal/petition that the request is still
pending with the OSG. If the OSG denies the request for conformity, the
reviewing court shall dismiss the private complainant's appeal/ petition
for lack of legal personality.
3. When the petition for certiorari filed by the private complainant
challenges 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, the
reviewing court shall require the OSG to file a comment within a non-
extendible period of 30 days from notice.
4. These guidelines shall apply prospectively.
In Austria’s case, while the private complainants filed the petition
before the CA without the OSG’s prior conformity, the Court held that they
cannot be faulted for relying on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the
criminal aspect of the case through a petition for certiorari on the grounds of
grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process.
The Court also noted that in any event, the OSG later joined the cause
of the private complainants and gave its conformity to the petition for
certiorari filed before the CA.
‘The Court held further that the private complainants sufficiently
established that the RTC’s acquittal orders 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 or when the disputed act of the trial court goes beyond the limits
of discretion thus effecting an injustice.”
Thus, the CA was correct in nullifying the RTC’s orders, which simply
copied the allegations of Austria in his motions for reconsideration and
memoranda. ‘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,” said the Court.
Finally, as to the issue of double jeopardy, the Court ruled that as the
RIC’s acquittal orders were void judgments, they have no legal effect and thus
did not terminate the case. Hence, Austria's right against double jeopardy was
not violated.
While the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA in favor of the
private complainants, the case was ordered remanded to the RTC for
resolution of Austria’s motion for reconsideration in accordance with the
constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
FULL TEXT OF G
hittps://s
Ne
judiciary.gov.ph/32735,
205275 dated June 28, 2022 at