27. PEOPLE VS. PICCIO The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

  Poblador, Bautista & Reyes for petitioners.

G.R. No. 193681. August 6, 2014.*   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,   Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Office for respondents Philip
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and HELEN Y. DEE, private Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Rolando Pareja, Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra and
complainants-petitioners, vs. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. Victoria Gomez Jacinto.
ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN   Levito D. Baligod  for respondent Upano.
UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, 256        Guiller B. Asido for respondent Santos.
ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA   Ricardo Ribo for respondent Dizon.
GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, Gerodias, Suchianco, Estrella for respondent Suchianco.
PETER SUCHIANCO, and TRENNIE MONSOD, respondents. Soo, Gutierrez, Leogardo & Lee for respondent Monsod.
Attorneys; Office of the Solicitor General; It is well-settled that the Walfredo C. Bayhon for Anabella Rellova Santos and John Joseph
authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Gutierrez.
Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) is vested solely in the Solis, Medina, Limpingco & Fajardo for Bonifacio, Ortuoste, Pereche, Jr.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which is the law office of the and Upano.
Government.—It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in RESOLUTION
appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the PERLAS-BERNABE,  J.:
OSG which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the Resolution2 dated
functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before September 15, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 31549
any court in any which granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the
_______________ Resolution3dated January 21, 2009, thereby dismissing petitioners’ notice of
* SECOND DIVISION. appeal4 from the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 06-875 5 for libel on the
255action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice ground that petitioners had no personality to appear for the State and appeal
may require. the criminal aspect of a case because the Office of the Solicitor General
Same; Same; Jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a (OSG) did not give its conformity to the same. Assailed further is the
criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is Resolution6 dated September 2, 2010 denying petitioners’ motion for
only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that may bring an appeal on reconsid-
the criminal aspect representing the People.—Jurisprudence holds that if _______________
there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an 1 Rollo, pp. 10-32.
acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on 2 Id., at pp. 55-67. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with
the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid,
rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal concurring.
action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining 3 Id., at pp. 50-53.
witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real 4 Id., at pp. 71-72.
parties-in-interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can 5 Entitled “People of the Philippines and Alfonso Yuchengco, et al. v.
represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. In Philip Piccio, et al.,” which was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or City, Branch 139.
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited 6 Rollo, pp. 69-70.
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of 257eration of the September 15, 2009 Resolution of the CA for lack of merit.
the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented The Facts
by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez, President of the
party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency — the advertising arm of the
only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file Yuchengco Group of Companies, to which Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.
a special civil action for certiorarieven without the intervention of the OSG, is a corporate member — filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the Office
but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. of the City Prosecutor of Makati City against a group called the Parents
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting on the website

Page 1 of 4
www.pepcoalition.com on August 25, 2005 an article entitled “Back to the 11  Id., at pp. 22 and 23.
Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance with Coalition.” 12 Id., at pp. 23 and 56.
As alleged in the complaint, such publication was highly defamatory and 13 Id., at p. 56. See id., at pp. 71-72.
libelous against the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group of 14 Id., at pp. 74-116.
Companies, particularly petitioners Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and Helen Y. 15 See Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Period to File Appellant’s
Dee (petitioners).7 Brief; id., at pp. 117-118.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City 8 found probable cause to 16 Id., at pp. 120-122.
indict 16 trustees, officers and/or members of PEPCI, namely, respondents 17 (With Prayer to Hold in Abeyance Submission of Appellees’ Brief); id.,
Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Relova Santos, John Joseph at pp. 124-129.
Gutierrez, Jocelyn Upano (Upano), Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja, Wonina 259the conforme of the OSG and that ordinary appeal was not the
Bonifacio (Bonifacio), Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste appropriate remedy. In a Resolution18 dated January 21, 2009 the CA denied
(Ortuoste), Victoria Gomez Jacinto, Juvencio Pereche, Jr. (Pereche, Jr.), the said motion and directed respondents to file their appellee’s brief. 19
Ricardo Lorayes, Peter Suchianco, and Trennie Monsod (respondents) for 13 Instead of filing the required appellee’s brief, respondents moved for the
counts of libel.9 reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, prompting petitioners and the
The criminal information in I.S. No. 1-11-11995 was soon after raffled to OSG to file their respective comments.20
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 (RTC) and was docketed In their Comment/Opposition21 to the said motion for reconsideration,
as Criminal Case No. 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
7 Id., at p. 55. See also id., at pp. 16-19. the public prosecutor and therefore valid; and that jurisprudence shows that
8 Through 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo I. Rañola and approved the conformity of the OSG is not required when grave errors are committed
by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi. by the trial court or where there is lack of due process.
9 Rollo, pp. 20 and 56. In its Comment,22 the OSG concurred in the propriety of the remedy of an
25806-875. Upon motion of respondents Bonifacio, Upano, Ortuoste, and appeal against the assailed order, but nonetheless, asserted that the appeal,
Pereche, Jr., the RTC, in an Order dated May 23, 2007, quashed the criminal without its conformity, must fail because under the law it is only the OSG that
information for libel and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, 10 holding should represent the People in criminal cases.
that the criminal information failed to allege where the article was printed and The CA’s Ruling
first published or where the offended parties reside. 11 It subsequently denied In a Resolution dated September 15, 2009, the CA dismissed the appeal
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated February 11, 2008. 12 on the ground that the OSG had not given its conformity to the said appeal. 23
On February 29, 2008, the People of the Philippines (People), through _______________
the private prosecutors, and with the conformity of public prosecutor 18 Id., at pp. 50-53.
Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr., filed a Notice of Appeal. 13 Soon after, petitioners 19 Id., at pp. 24 and 58.
filed the Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants 14 as directed by the 20 Id.
CA. The OSG, for its part, however, sought suspension of the period to file 21 Id., at pp. 130-140.
the required brief pending information and endorsement from the Department 22 Id., at pp. 141-151.
of Justice (DOJ) on whether it is the People or the private complainant that 23 Id., at p. 67.
should file the same.15 260  Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration 24 but the same was
Subsequently, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion 16 dated October denied by the CA in a Resolution 25 dated September 2, 2010, hence, this
20, 2008 stating that it had received an advisory from the DOJ that the latter petition.
had no information about the case and, thus, prayed that it be excused from The Issue Before the Court
filing the appellant’s brief. The sole issue in this case is whether or not petitioners, being mere
Meanwhile, respondents Bonifacio, Upano, Ortuoste, and Pereche, Jr. private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a
filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, 17 citing as grounds for dismissal the fact criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity.
that the Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants filed by petitioners did The Court’s Ruling
not carry The petition lacks merit.
_______________ The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by petitioners
10 Id., at p. 56. against the May 23, 2007 Order of the RTC because they, being mere

Page 2 of 4
private complainants, lacked the legal personality to appeal the dismissal of 30 Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687
Criminal Case No. 06-875 (resulting from the quashal of the information SCRA 151, 160.
therein on the ground of lack of jurisdiction). 31 Id., at pp. 158-159.
To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in 262ible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an
appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability
OSG26 which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and of the accused is concerned.32 He may also file a special civil action
functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of
any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. 33
justice may require.27Explicitly, Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely to preserve
the 1987 Administrative Code28 provides that: 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
24 Id., at pp. 152-162. thereby seeking that the said court be directed to set the case for
25 Id., at pp. 54-67. arraignment and to proceed with trial,34 it is sufficiently clear that they sought
26 Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 52. the reinstatement of the criminal prosecution of respondents for libel. Being
27 Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA an obvious attempt to meddle into the criminal aspect of the case without the
816, 845. conformity of the OSG, their recourse, in view of the above discussed
28 Executive Order No. 292, Series of 1987. principles, must necessarily fail. To repeat, the right to prosecute criminal
261 cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is therefore the proper party
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions.—The Office of the Solicitor to bring the appeal through the representation of the OSG. Petitioners have
General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies no personality or legal standing to interpose an appeal in a criminal
and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, proceeding. Since the OSG had expressly withheld its conformity and
investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. x x x. It shall have endorsement in the instant case, the CA, therefore, correctly dismissed the
the following specific powers and functions: appeal. It must, however, be clarified that the aforesaid dismissal is without
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court prejudice to their filing of the appropriate action to preserve their interests but
of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its only with respect to the civil aspect of the libel case following the parameters
officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated
or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphases supplied) September 15, 2009 and September 2, 2010 of the Court
    Accordingly, 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 32 Supra note 26.
only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect 33 See Ong v. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA
representing the People.29 The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle 188.
that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People 34 Rollo, p. 114.
and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, 263of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 31549 dismissing petitioners’ appeal
the People are therefore deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the criminal from the dismissal of the criminal case for libel are hereby AFFIRMED.
case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal SO ORDERED.
proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. 30 In view of the corollary Brion (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez  andLeonen,**  JJ.,
principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of concur.
the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.
judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, 31 an Notes.—Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or
appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the
OSG is perforce dismiss- People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of
_______________ Appeals. (Tiu vs. People, 586 SCRA 118 [2009])
29 See Soriano v. Judge Angeles, 393 Phil. 769, 776; 339 SCRA 366, Only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions in behalf of the
372-373 (2000); and Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal
19, 2011, 569 SCRA 590, 598. proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals;

Page 3 of 4
Exceptions: (1) when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution
and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the
State and the private offended party, and (2) when the private offended party
questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court. (Heirs of Federico C.
Delgado vs. Gonzalez, 595 SCRA 501 [2009])
——o0o——
_______________
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated December 18, 2013.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 4 of 4