Supreme Court of the Philippines

SC: If SolGen conforms, private parties can now appeal criminal judgment

Jairo Bolledo

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

SC: If SolGen conforms, private parties can now appeal criminal judgment

COURT OF LAST RESORT. The Supreme Court of the Philippines in Manila.

Rappler

The High Court also lays down specific guidelines as to when a private complainant can appeal in a criminal proceeding

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court, through an important ruling publicized on Saturday, February 4, said that private complainants can now appeal judgments and orders in criminal proceedings as long as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) conforms to their request.

The High Court released the guidelines after its en banc denied the petition for certiorari filed by a certain Mamerto Austria, which challenged a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling. The appellate court’s ruling overturned the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) acquittal of Austria in criminal charges, specifically acts of lasciviousness.

Certiorari is used to seek a review of a lower court’s decision. Associate Justice Mario Lopez penned the 36-page decision.

The principle in question was whether a private complainant can appeal a case in a criminal proceeding. In Austria’s case, the private complainants sought the CA’s help after the accused secured his victory at the RTC level.

Conformity

The SC reiterated that a private complainant has no legal personality or capacity to appeal without the conformity of the OSG – the state’s primary legal counsel – adding that the request shall be made “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,” the High Court added.

OSG’s comment

According to the SC, the reviewing court should require the OSG to file a comment within a non-extendible period of 30 days from notice if a private complainant challenged an acquittal and dismissal of a criminal case. The OSG will also be required to comment if a private complainant questions “the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.”

On civil liability

The SC, in its guidelines, clarified that a private complainant has the legal personality to appeal on the civil liability of a person. The High Court also said the private party’s “specific pecuniary interest” should be present in the appeal or petition for certiorari.

However, the SC said if the appeal will affect a criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, the OSG will be required by the reviewing court to file a comment within a non-extendible period of 30 days.

“The OSG’s comment must state 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.”

What happened in Austria’s case?

Based on the SC’s briefer, the RTC convicted Austria of five counts of acts of lasciviousness committed against two 11-year-old students – the private complainants in the case. Austria is a public school teacher.

However, the RTC’s conviction was overturned when a new presiding judge granted the teacher’s motion for reconsideration (MR), while the private complainant’s own MR was denied. The private complainants – not the state – elevated the case to the CA and asked the court to review the RTC’s decision, saying there was an alleged grave abuse of discretion.

The appellate court sided with the private complainants and said the lower court disregarded the constitutional requirement that “a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” The CA added that since the RTC ruling was void, the double jeopardy did not apply to the case.

Afterwards, Austria brought the case to the High Court, where he invoked his right against double jeopardy. He also claimed that the private complainants have no legal personality to appeal against his acquittal. The SC later required the OSG to file a comment regarding the private complainant’s legal standing in the 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,” the SC said. (READ: Indicted? Charged? A guide to court jargon)

The decision

According to the SC, the private complainants cannot be “faulted” for relying on jurisprudence, allowing them to assail the criminal judgment based on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process. It added that the OSG eventually joined the cause of the complainants after it gave its conformity.

“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,'” the SC added.

The SC also noted that the CA was correct in nullifying the RTC decision, “which simply copied the allegations of Austria in his motions for reconsideration and memoranda.” It added that Austria’s right against double jeopardy was not violated because the RTC’s acquittal was void, so it has no legal effect. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!
Avatar photo

author

Jairo Bolledo

Jairo Bolledo is a multimedia reporter at Rappler covering justice, police, and crime.