People v Piccio

People v Piccio  Aug. 6, 6, 2014 | Perlas-Bernabe Perlas-Bernabe,, J: Doctrine: It is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People.







Facts: 







 



Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the CA Resolution which granted the respondents’ motion for reconsideration which dismissed petitioners’ notice of appeal from the dismissal of the criminal case for libel on the ground that the petitioners had no personality to appear for the State and appeal the criminal aspect of the case without the OSG’s conforme. October 18, 2005: Jessie John Gimenez, President of the Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency (of the Yuchengco Group of Companies which Malayan Insurance Company Inc is a corporate member) filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the City Prosecutor of Makati City against Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting on August 25, 2005 an article on the website www.pepcoalition.com entitled “Back to the Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance with Coalition.” The publication was highly defamatory defamatory and libelous against the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group of Companies, particularly Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and Helen Y. Dee. The Makati Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict 16 trustees, officers and members of PEPCI. The criminal information was raffled to the Makati RTC. May 23, 2007: The RTC, upon the motion of the respondents quashed the criminal information for libel and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the information failed to allege where the article was printed and first published or where the offended parties reside. February 11, 2008: RTC denied the petitioners’ motion for  reconsideration.











February 29, 2008: the People of the Philippines, Philippines, through the private prosecutors and with the conformity of the public prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr., filed a Notice of Appeal. Petitioners filed the Brief for the Private Complainants Appellants  Appellants as directed directed by the CA. OSG sought suspension of the period to file the required brief pending information and endorsement from the DOJ on whether it is the People or the private complainant that should file the Brief. October 20, 2008: OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that it had received an advisory from the DOJ that the latter had no information about the case and prayed that it be excused from filing the appellant’s brief. Respondents filed a Motion Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants filed by the petitioners did not carry the conforme of the OSG and that ordinary appeal was not the appropriate remedy. Petitioners submit that the notice of appeal was signed by the public prosecutor and is valid. They also alleged that the conformity of the OSG is not required when grave errors arqe committed by the trial court or where there is lack of due process. OSG concurred that the appeal was the proper remedy but without its conformity, the appeal must fail because under the law it is only the OSG that should represent the People in criminal cases. CA’s Ruling: CA dismissed the appeal because the OSG had not given its conformity to the appeal.

ISSUE: WoN petitioners being mere private complainants may appeal an order of the trail court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity HELD: NO













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. Sec. 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987  Administrative Code provides that the power of the OSG includes representing the Government in the SC and the CA in all criminal proceedings. 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. Rationale of the principle: The party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are merely complaining witnesses. Hence, the People are the real parties-in-interest in the criminal case. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-ininterest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The private complainant may file an appeal without the OSG’s intervention only insofar as the civil liability of the accused. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari without the OSG’s intervention only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. In this case, the petitioners did not file their appeal merely to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case. They sought the reversal of the RTC’s quashal of the information and set the case for arraignment and to proceed with trial. It is sufficiently clear that they sought the reinstatement of the criminal prosecution of the respondents for libel.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated September 15, 2009 and September 2, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 31549 dismissing petitioners' appeal from the dismissal of the criminal case for libel are hereby  AFFIRMED.