Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83310:57300&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:33:22+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 193681, August 06, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Private Complainants-Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD,, Respondents.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Private Complainants-Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD,, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the Resolution2 dated September 15, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31549 which granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the Resolution3 dated January 21, 2009, thereby dismissing petitioners’ notice of appeal4 from the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 06-8755 for libel on the ground that petitioners had no personality to appear for the State and appeal the criminal aspect of a case because the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not give its conformity to the same. Assailed further is the Resolution6 dated September 2, 2010 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the September 15, 2009 Resolution of the CA for lack of merit.
Subsequently, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion16 dated October 20, 2008 stating that it had received an advisory from the DOJ that the latter had no information about the case and, thus, prayed that it be excused from filing the appellant’s brief.
In their Comment/ Opposition21 to the said motion for reconsideration, petitioners insisted that the trial court’s order of dismissal was a final order from which an appeal was available; that the notice of appeal was signed by the public prosecutor and therefore valid; and that jurisprudence shows that the conformity of the OSG is not required when grave errors are committed by the trial court or where there is lack of due process.
In its Comment,22 the OSG concurred in the propriety of the remedy of an appeal against the assailed order, but nonetheless, asserted that the appeal, without its conformity, must fail because under the law it is only the OSG that should represent the People in criminal cases.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration24 but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution25 dated September 2, 2010, hence, this petition.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity.
The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by petitioners against the May 23, 2007 Order of the RTC 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).
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,34 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. Since the OSG had expressly withheld its conformity and endorsement in the instant case, the CA, therefore, correctly dismissed the appeal. It must, however, be clarified that the aforesaid dismissal is without prejudice to their filing of the appropriate action to preserve their interests but only with respect to the civil aspect of the libel case following the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
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.
Brion, (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen,* JJ., concur.
* Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated December 18, 2013.
2 Id. at 55-67. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring.
5 Entitled “People of the Philippines and Alfonso Yuchengco, et al. v. Philip Piccio, et al.,” which was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139.
7 Id. at 55. See also id. at 16-19.
8 Through 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo I. Rañola and approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi.
9Rollo, pp. 20 and 56.
11 Id. at 22 and 23.
12 Id. at 23 and 56.
13 Id. at 56. See id. at 71-72.
15 See Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Period to File Appellant’s Brief; id. at 117-118.
17 (With Prayer to Hold in Abeyance Submission of Appellees’ Brief); id. at 124-129.
19 Id. at 24 and 58.
26Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014.
27Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 816, 845.
28 Executive Order No. 292, Series of 1987.
29 See Soriano v. Judge Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 776 (2000); and Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October 19, 2011, 569 SCRA 590, 598.
30Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 151, 160.
32Villareal v. Aliga, supra note 26.
33 See Ong v. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 188.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.