Marawi City against the accused, docketed as

Consti Page 23-10 Tanog Vs Balindong 777 Criminal Case No. 447i_04. This case was
SCRA 467, GR 187464 (Nov. 25, 2015) raffled to Branch 9, which was presided by
Judge Amer Ibrahim. Thereafter, Judge Ibrahim
CABIB ALONTO TANOG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. issued an "order of arrest" against the
RASAD G. BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, accused.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial
Region, MARAWI CITY, AND GAPO SIDIC, On January 8, 2005, Sidic filed a motion to fix
RESPONDENTS. bail before the RTC, claiming that the evidence
of guilt against him was not strong.[3] After the
BRION, J.: prosecution presented four witnesses, the RTC,
Branch 9: (a) considered the presentation of
This is a petition for certiorari[1] filed by evidence by the prosecution for the purposes
petitioner Cabib Alonto Tanog (Cabib) assailing of the motion to fix bail deemed terminated;
the orders dated February 11, 2009; February and (b) set the presentation of Sidic's counter
13, 2009; and March 2, 2009, respectively, evidence on May 21, 2008.
issued by respondent Hon. Rasad G. Balindong
(Judge Balindong), then Acting Presiding Judge Due to the death of Judge Ibrahim, Judge
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Lacsaman Busran of the RTC, Branch 11,
Marawi City, in Criminal Case No. 4471-04. Marawi City, was designated as Acting
Presiding Judge of Branch 9. The records of
The Antecedents: Criminal Case No. 4471-04 was re-raffled to
Branch 10 because Judge Busran had been
On July 5, 2004, Cabib Tanog, Jr. was shot to previously designated as its Acting Presiding
death by a group of armed persons inside the Judge.
canteen of Dansalan College Foundation, Inc.
in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. On February 4, 2009, Sidic filed an urgent ex-
parte motion to direct special raffle before the
On the same day, members of the Marawi City RTC, Branch 10 since he had been in detention
police apprehended Gapo Sidic (Sidic) at a for more than four years, and Branch 10 was
police checkpoint while he was on board a already overburdened with numerous cases.
Tamaraw FX vehicle bound for Iligan City.
In its Order of February 4, 2009, Judge Busran
On July 8, 2004, the petitioner filed a granted Sidic's motion to direct a special raffle,
complaint for murder before the Office of the and directed his Branch Clerk of Court to
City Prosecutor in Marawi City against Sidic, forward the records of Criminal Case No. 4471-
Anwar Bonsalagan, Papas Balindong, Nago 04 to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC).
Balindong, and Arsad Balindong for the death
of his son, Cabib, Jr. On the next day, the OCC transmitted the
records of Criminal Case No. 4471-04 to RTC,
In its resolution dated August 3, 2004, the Branch 8, presided by respondent Judge
Office of the City Prosecutor found probable Balindong.
cause to indict the five (5) accused, and
recommended the filing of an In its order dated February 11, 2009,[4] the RTC,
information[2] for murder against them. Branch 8 granted Sidic's motion to fix bail, and
fixed the amount at P30,000.00. It essentially
The prosecution filed an Information for held that evidence of guilt against Sidic was
murder before the Regional Trial Court of not strong since the witnesses presented by

Page 1 of 9
the prosecution did not actually see the victim only P30,000.00. He maintained that Judge
shot. Balindong should have inhibited himself from
taking part in Criminal Case No. 4471-04 since
In its order[5] of February 13, 2009, the RTC, the latter is related to the accused within the
Branch 8 directed the City Warden to release prohibited degree under Rule 137 of the Rules
Sidic after the latter had posted the P30,000.00 of Court.
cash bond.
OUR RULING
The prosecution filed an omnibus motion for
reconsideration to cancel bond posted for the After due consideration, we resolve
provisional liberty of the accused and for to DISMISS the petition.
inhibition[6] before the RTC, Branch 8.
The case is already moot
[7]
In his order dated March 2, 2009, Judge
Balindong held that "[t]he motion to fix bail A case is said to be moot or academic when it
was resolved justly and fairly in accordance ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
with the law, rules and jurisprudence."[8] He, virtue of supervening events, so that a ruling
however, opted to inhibit himself "from would be of no practical use or value. Courts
further taking action on the other generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases
incidents"[9] of the case out of "delicadeza." because there is no substantial relief to which
The dispositive portion of this order provides: petitioner would be entitled and which would
anyway be negated by the dismissal of the
WHEREFORE, the undersigned Acting Presiding petition.[11]
Judge is inhibiting himself from trying and
deciding the case of accused Gapo Sidic. The In Republic Telecommunications Holdings, Inc.
rest of the accused are at large, hence, the v. Santiago,[12] we held that:
most that the next Judge/Acting Judge can do
is to archive the case insofar as they are The rule is well-settled that for a court to
concerned and issue alias Warrant of Arrest. exercise its power of adjudication, there must
be an actual case or controversy—one which
Let the record in its entirety be forwarded to involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion
the Office of the Clerk of Court for appropriate of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
action considering that it cannot be re-raffled resolution; the case must not be moot or
to RTC Branch 9 as the latter sala is presided by academic or based on extralegal or other
Judge Lacsaman M. Busran of RTC Branch 10 similar considerations not cognizable by a
who earlier inhibited himself from trying this court of justice. Where the issue has become
case. moot and academic, there is no justiciable
controversy, and an adjudication thereon
SO ORDERED.[10] would be of no practical use or value as courts
do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
The Petition for Certiorari questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging.
In the present petition, the petitioner alleged
that Judge Balindong committed grave abuse The events which took place during the
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of pendency of the present case have rendered
jurisdiction when he granted Sidic's motion to the present petition forcertiorari moot. The
fix bail despite the strong evidence of guilt record shows that during the pendency of this
against him, and in fixing the amount of bail at petition, the RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan City,

Page 2 of 9
presided by Judge Sibanah E. otherwise, in the adjudication of cases that
Usman,[13] rendered a decision on January 20, some of these cases may have to be remanded
2015, in Criminal Case No. 4471-04 finding or referred to the lower court as the proper
Sidic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the forum under the rules of procedure, or
crime of murder, and sentenced him to suffer because these courts are better equipped to
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The decision resolve the issues given that this Court is not a
became final and executory on March 26, trier of facts.[16]
2015.
In Dy v. Bibat-Palamos,[17] the Court recognized
We recall that the present petition questioned various exceptions to the strict application of
Judge Balindong's orders granting the motion the principle of hierarchy of courts, as follows:
to fix bail filed by Sidic and setting the amount
of bail at only P30,000.00. Sidic was charged xxx, the invocation of this Court's original
with a capital offense, and his conviction jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been
clearly imports that the evidence of guilt allowed in certain instances on the ground of
against him of the offense charged was strong. special and important reasons clearly stated in
Thus, whatever judgment is reached in this the petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the
case would no longer have any practical legal public welfare and the advancement of public
effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer policy; (2) when demanded by the broader
be enforced. Simply put, the petitioner's interest of justice; (3) when the challenged
conviction of a capital offense, which had orders were patent nullities; or (4) when
already attained finality,[14] warranted his analogous exceptional and compelling
incarceration. Any resolution on the propriety circumstances called for and justified the
of Judge Balindong's challenged orders relating immediate and direct handling of the case.
to Sidic's provisional release would be of no
useful or practical value. Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain
direct resort to it unless the redress desired
The petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts,
judicial hierarchy. and exceptional and compelling circumstances
(such as cases of national interest and of
We also point out that the present petition serious implications) justify the use of the
for certiorari should have been filed with the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, calling for
Court of Appeals (CA) and not with this Court the exercise of its primary
pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. jurisdiction.[18] Exceptional and compelling
Although this Court, the CA, and the Regional circumstances were held present in the
Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to following cases: (a)Chavez v. Romulo on
issue writs of certiorari, citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas the United States of America v. Purgananon
corpus, and injunction, the commonality does bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission
not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of on Elections v. Quijano-Padilla on government
choice in the forum to be used.[15] The contract involving modernization and
appropriate forum is the court lowest in the computerization of voters' registration list;
judicial hierarchy. (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamoraon
status and existence of a public office; and
The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it (e) Fortich v. Corona on the so-called "Win-Win
would be an imposition upon the precious Resolution" of the Office of the President
time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an which modified the approval of the conversion
inevitable and resultant delay, intended or to agro-industrial area.[19]

Page 3 of 9
 amended, states that no person charged with a
In the present case, the petitioner failed to capital offense, or an offense punishable
offer any explanation on why he failed to by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
comply with the principle of judicial hierarchy; when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be
he gave no justification why he did not admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the
challenge the assailed RTC orders before the criminal prosecution.
CA. We thus reaffirm the judicial policy that
this Court will not entertain a direct invocation We point out that the accused were charged of
of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired murder, a crime punishable by reclusion
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts perpetua to death. If the information charges a
below, and exceptional and compelling capital offense, the right to bail becomes a
circumstances justify the resort to this Court matter of discretion and the grant thereof may
through the extraordinary remedy of writ be justified as a matter of right if the evidence
of certiorari.[20] We reiterate that a petition for of guilt is not strong. The determination of
certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and the whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong,
party who seeks to avail of this remedy must being a matter of judicial discretion, remains
strictly observe the procedural rules laid down with the judge.
by law and the rules.
To be sure, the discretion of the trial court is
The grave abuse of discretion issue not absolute nor beyond control. It must be
sound, and exercised within reasonable
Even if we decide the case on the merits, we bounds. Judicial discretion, by its very nature
still dismiss the present petition for its failure involves the exercise of the judge's individual
to establish that the assailed orders of Judge opinion and the law has wisely provided that
Balindong were tainted with grave abuse of its exercise be guided by well-known rules
discretion amounting to lack or excess of that, while allowing the judge rational latitude
jurisdiction. for the operation of his own individual views,
prevent rulings that are out of control.[22]
a. The grant of the motion to fix bail
In the present case, we find that Judge
The right to bail flows from the right to be Balindong did not act in a whimsical, arbitrary,
presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person and capricious manner when he granted Sidic's
in the custody of the law who may be allowed motion to fix bail. The records showed that
provisional liberty upon filing of a security to a hearing on the application for bail was
guarantee his appearance before any court, as conducted and that the prosecution presented
required under specified conditions. Before four witnesses, namely Noma Tanog, Cabib
conviction, bail is either a matter of right or of Tanog, Sr., Saripada Tanog, and Saripoden
discretion. It is a matter of right when the Tanog Lucman. Judge Balindong evaluated the
offense charged is punishable by any penalty testimonies of these witnesses, and found out
lower than reclusion perpetua. If the offense that none of them witnessed the actual
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, shooting of the victim: Noma merely saw Sidic
bail becomes a matter of discretion. Bail is running towards the direction of the vehicles
denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The after he (Noma) went to Dansalan College
court's discretion is limited to determining Foundation, Inc. to verify the gunshots he
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.[21] heard; Saripada admitted that he did not see
Sidic shoot the victim; Cabib admitted that it
Corollarily, Article 114, Section 7 of the was Noma who pointed Sidic to him as one of
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the victim's assailants; and Saripoden merely

Page 4 of 9
described the attire of one of the men he saw the offense charged; (d) character and
at the canteen, and did not mention the name reputation of the accused; (e) age and health
of Sidic. On the basis of these testimonies, of the accused; (f) weight of the evidence
Judge Balindong concluded that the against the accused; (g) probability of the
prosecution failed to show that the evidence accused appearing at the trial; (h) forfeiture of
against Sidic was strong. other bail; (i) the fact that the accused was a
fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j)
We additionally examined the affidavits of pendency of other cases where the accused is
Cabib and Noma,[23] and found that these on bail.
documents supported the findings of Judge
Balindong. It is settled that the amount of bail should be
reasonable at all times. In implementing this
In his affidavit, Cabib stated that he was mandate, regard should be taken of the
informed of the death of his son by Adil prisoner's pecuniary circumstances. We point
Dima;[24] and that it was Noma who told him out that what is reasonable bail to a man of
the identities of five of the assailants. For his wealth may be unreasonable to a poor man
part, Noma stated in his.affidavit that he saw charged with a like offense. Thus, the right to
Sidic as one of the persons who ran towards a bail should not be rendered nugatory by
maroon Tamaraw FX (bearing plate number requiring a sum that is relatively excessive. The
ATF 754) and a blue Toyota Corona (without amount should be high enough to assure the
any plate number) after the shooting. He presence of the defendant when required, but
(Noma) mentioned, however, that the no higher than is reasonably calculated to
Tamaraw FX the police flagged down was fulfill this purpose.[26]
colored red.[25]
Judge Balindong explained how he arrived at
In the light of the testimonies and affidavits of the amount in this manner:
the witnesses, we cannot fault Judge
Balindong if he had ruled that the evidence of Considering the guidelines under Section 9,
guilt against the accused was not strong. Rule 114, Rules of Court, among them: the
health of the accused who has languished in
That the RTC eventually convicted Sidic is of no jail since his apprehension on July 5, 2004 and
moment, since the trial judge, in determining up to the present or for more than four (4)
the weight of evidence for the purposes of years; his character and reputation as he is a
bail, did not sit to try the merits of the case. former Councillor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, in
fact, he was incumbent councillor at the time
b. Amount of bail of his detention; the weight of evidence
against him, a weak one; and his financial
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, we also hold ability and considering further the
that Judge Balindong did not act with grave constitutional and statutory provision that
abuse of discretion when he set the amount of "excessive bail shall not be required," the bail
Sidic's bailatP30,000.00. is fixed at P30,000.00.[27]

Section 9 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court Assuming that the bail set by Judge Balindong
provides that in fixing the amount of bail in is low considering that the 2000 Bail Bond
criminal cases, judges shall primarily consider Guide of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
the following factors: (a) financial ability of the recommends "no bail" for murder, we cannot
accused to give bail; (b) nature and use this fact alone to hold that his order -with
circumstances of the offense; (c) penalty for respect to the amount of bail set - had been

Page 5 of 9
issued with grave abuse of discretion. We The rule on compulsory disqualification of a
point out that the DOJ Bail Bond Guide - while judge to hear a case where, as in the instant
persuasive and merits attention - is not binding case, the respondent judge is related to either
on the courts. In fixing the amount of bail, the party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
judge is given the discretion to set an amount or affinity rests on the salutary principle that
which he or she perceives as appropriate no judge should preside in a case in which he is
under given circumstances in relation to the not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
factors enumerated under Section 9 of Rule independent. A judge has both the duty of
114. As quoted above, Judge Balindong rendering a just decision and the duty of doing
enumerated the reasons (i.e., accused's it in a manner completely free from suspicion
incarceration for more than 4 years; his as to its fairness and as to his integrity. The law
reputation as a former councillor; his financial conclusively presumes that a judge cannot
ability; and the weak evidence against him) objectively or impartially sit in such a case and,
why he set the amount of bail at P30,000.00. for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his
authority to hear and decide it, in the absence
c. Non-inhibition of Judge Balindong of written consent of all parties concerned.
The purpose is to preserve the people's faith
The rule on disqualification of judges is laid and confidence in the courts of justice.
down in Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: In the present case, we hold that the petitioner
failed to substantiate his allegation that Judge
SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges. - No Balindong is related to Sidic within the sixth
judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in degree of consanguinity or affinity to warrant
which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily his (Judge Balindong's) mandatory inhibition
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or from the case.
otherwise, or in which he is related to either
party within the sixth degree of consanguinity In his omnibus motion for reconsideration to
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth cancel bond posted for the provisional liberty
degree, computed according to the rules of the of the accused and for inhibition, the petitioner
civil law, or in which he has been executor, prayed, among others, that Judge Balindong
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or inhibit himself from trying and deciding the
in which he has presided in any inferior court case on the merit[s]. He alleged that:
when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all xxx the accused is allegedly a relative of the
parties in interest, signed by them and entered Honorable Acting Presiding Judge of this Court
upon the record. especially the other accused, namely: Papas
xxx Balindong, Nago Balindong alias Hilal and
Arsad Balindong. Besides, accused Gapo Sidic
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound is a resident and native of Barangay Yaran
discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a which is an adjacent or adjoining barangay
case, for just or valid reasons other than those of BarangayDapao which is allegedly the
mentioned above, (emphasis ours) native place of the Honorable Acting Presiding
Judge. Moreover, Barangays Yaran and Dapao
The reason behind the rule on compulsory are parts of the Sultanate territory of Picong
disqualification of judges was explained wherein the Honorable Acting Presiding Judge
in Villaluz v. Judge Mijares[28]as follows: of this Honorable Court was crowned as Sultan
[of] Picong.[29] (emphasis ours)

Page 6 of 9
 bail, he opted to inhibit himself "from further
The petitioner described the relationship taking action on the other incidents"[30] of
between Judge Balindong and the accused Criminal Case No. 4471-04 out of "delicadeza."
with more specifity in the present petition The records do not indicate what Judge
for certiorari by alleging that: Judge Balindong Balindong meant to convey when he used the
is the "uncle-in-law" of Sidic; Judge Balindong term "delicadeza" to justify his inhibition; we
is the first cousin of accused Papas; and cannot imply something that is not supported
accused Nago and Arsad are Judge Balindong's by the records of the case.
"nephews by first degree cousins."
It would have been ideal if the petitioner had
To support these claims, the petitioner filed an administrative case against Judge
attached to the present petition an affidavit Balindong if he truly believed that the latter
executed by Manorbi Sidic essentially stating committed a violation of the Code of Judicial
that: (1) Sidic's mother-in-law is the sister of Ethics or the Rules. This would have enabled
Judge Balindong; (2) Judge Balindong and Judge Balindong to properly answer the
Papas are first-degree cousins; and (3) Nago charges against him, particularly his decision
and Arsad are the "nephews by first-degree not to initially inhibit from Criminal Case No.
cousins" of Judge Balindong. 4471-04. It would have also given us ample
and sufficient basis to rule on the validity of
To our mind, these bare claims, supported by a the petitioner's claim that Judge Balindong
mere affidavit of Manorbi that had not been was related to the accused within the
presented before the RTC, Branch 8, are prohibitive degree under Rule 137.
grossly insufficient to determine whether
Judge Balindong falls within the compulsory We reiterate that grave abuse of discretion
inhibition under Rule 137. We point out that implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
the petitioner's use of the term 'allegedly' in judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction or
his omnibus motion for reconsideration to an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power
cancel bond posted for the provisional liberty because of passion or personal hostility. The
of the accused and for inhibition revealed that grave abuse of discretion must be so patent
he himself was unsure and uncertain if Judge and gross as to amount to an evasion or
Balindong was indeed related to Sidic and the refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. In
other accused. Corollarily, the presentation of this case, the petitioner failed to establish that
Manorbi's affidavit - attached for the first time Judge Balindong gravely abused his discretion
in this petition for certiorari - without any in issuing the challenged orders.
other evidence to substantiate the matters
stated therein, is inadequate and lacking to WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing,
determine the degree of Judge Balindong's we DISMISS the petition for certiorari filed by
relationship to the accused. We note in this petitioner Cabib Alonto Tanog.
regard that a mere relation by affinity or
consanguinity is not enough cause for the SO ORDERED.
compulsory inhibition of a judge; it should be
shown that the he or she is related to either Velasco,* Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen,
party within the sixth degree of consanguinity JJ., concur
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth Brion,** J., Acting Chairperson.
degree.
________________________
We are not unaware that after Judge
Balindong had granted Sidic's motion to fix

Page 7 of 9
* [7]
Designated as Acting member in lieu of Id. at 43.
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special
[8]
Order No. 2282 dated November 13, 2015. Ibid.

** [9]
Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Ibid.
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special
[10]
Order No. 2281 dated November 13, 2015. Ibid.

[1] [11]
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. See Ilusorio v. Baguio City Country Club
Corporation, G.R. No. 179571, July 2, 2014, 728
[2]
The Information reads: SCRA 592, 598.

[12]
That on or about July 5, 2004, in Marawi City, 556 Phil. 83, 91-92 (2007), citing People v.
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Peralta, G.R. No. 145176, March 30, 2004, 426
Honorable Court, said accused Gapo Sidic SCRA 472.
conspiring and confederating with Anwar
[13]
Bonsalagan, Papas Balindong, Nago Balindong The records showed that after Judge
alias Hilal, and Arsad Balindong who are still at Balindong inhibited himself from Criminal Case
large mutually aiding and assisting one No. 4471- 04, the Court issued a resolution
another, then armed with .45 Caliber Pistol designating Judge Oscar Badelles of RTC,
and other firearms, with deliberate intent and Branch 5, Iligan City, to hear and decide this
decided purpose to kill, with treachery, case. However, Judge Badelles issued an order
evident premeditation, taking advantage of of inhibition on December 29, 2009. The Court
superior strength and with the use of motor designated Judge Anisah Umpa of RTC, Branch
vehicles, a maroon FX Tamaraw bearing plate 2, Iligan City to try this case, but she also
no. ATF-754 and a Blue Sky Toyota Corona with inhibited herself on account of relationship to
no plate number did then and there wilfully, one of the accused and heavy case load. On
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and June 24, 2010, the case was re-raffled to RTC,
shoot one Cabib Tanog, Jr. with said weapons Branch 8, presided over by Judge Gamor
with which they were then provided for the Disalo. When Judge Disalo was transferred to
purpose, thereby inflicting upon the latter RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, the Court
gunshot wounds on the head and other vital issued a Memorandum to Judge Usman
parts of the body of the said Cabib Tanog, Jr. denying his request to be exempted from
which caused his instantaneous death, to the trying the case on account of distance from
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the Catbalogan City to Marawi City.
deceased victim.
[14]
Per Office of the Executive Judge, Records,
CONTRARY TO LAW. p. 654.

[3] [15]
Gapo Sidic was arraigned on March 28, 2005, See Lacson Hermanas, Inc. v. Heirs of
and pleaded "not guilty." lgnacio, 500 Phil. 673, 676 (2005).

[4] [16]
Rollo, pp. 38-41. See Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
Association, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of
[5]
Id. at 42. Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18,
2010, 621 SCRA295, 310.
[6]
Id. at 44-52.
[17]
G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013, 705

Page 8 of 9
SCRA 613, 621-622 (citation omitted).

[18]
See Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No.
143951, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 153, 161.

[19]
See Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon.
Melicor, 495 Phil. 422, 433 (2005), citations
omitted.

[20]
We also note that the petitioner's counsel
adopted a position contrary to that of the
Office of the Solicitor General who prayed for
the dismissal of the present petition
for certiorari. It is settled that while a private
prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in
criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court, his
participation is subordinate to the interest of
the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to
adopt a position to that of the Solicitor
General. To do so would be tantamount to
giving the private prosecutor the direction and
control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to
the provisions of law.

Page 9 of 9