The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed libel cases against petitioners Bautista and Alcantara for publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan. The trial court granted the petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the cases. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the trial court's order. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order, as only the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State, can appeal in criminal cases. As the petition was not filed by the Solicitor General, it should have been dismissed by the
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed libel cases against petitioners Bautista and Alcantara for publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan. The trial court granted the petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the cases. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the trial court's order. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order, as only the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State, can appeal in criminal cases. As the petition was not filed by the Solicitor General, it should have been dismissed by the
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed libel cases against petitioners Bautista and Alcantara for publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan. The trial court granted the petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the cases. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the trial court's order. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order, as only the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State, can appeal in criminal cases. As the petition was not filed by the Solicitor General, it should have been dismissed by the
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed libel cases against petitioners Bautista and Alcantara for publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan. The trial court granted the petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the cases. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the trial court's order. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent lacked legal standing to question the trial court's order, as only the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State, can appeal in criminal cases. As the petition was not filed by the Solicitor General, it should have been dismissed by the
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
93. Bautista v.
Cuneta-Pangilinan G.R. No. 189754 October 24, 2012
Case digest by Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles
FACTS The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City filed two (2) informations with the RTC, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City, against Pete G. Ampoloquio, Jr. (Ampoloquio), and petitioners Bautista and Alcantara, for the crime of libel, committed by publishing defamatory articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan in the tabloid Bandera. On November 14, 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File the Attached Demurrer to Evidence. On April 25, 2008, the RTC issued an Order granting petitioners’ Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the Criminal Case. On August 19, 2008, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, seeking to set aside the RTC Orders dated April 25, 2008 (which granted petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence and ordered the dismissal of the cases against them) and June 3, 2008 (which noted and admitted respondent's Comment to form part of the records of the case). In a Decision dated May 19, 2009, the CA granted respondent's petition, thereby reversing and setting aside the RTC Order. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated which, the CA, however, denied.
ISSUE/S
(1) Whether or not the respondent lacked the personality or legal standing to question the trial court’s order.
HELD
(1) Yes. Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan lacked the personality or legal standing to question the trial court’s order. The Court has definitively ruled that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.The private offended party or complainant may not undertake such appeal.
In the case at bar, the petition filed by the respondent before the CA essentially questioned the criminal aspect of the Order of the RTC, not the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, the petition should have been filed by the State through the OSG. Since the petition for certiorari filed in the CA was not at the instance of the OSG, the same should have been outrightly dismissed by the CA. Respondent lacked the personality or legal standing to question the trial court’s order because it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), who can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings, before the Supreme Court and the CA. Thus, the CA should have denied the petition outright.
