Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facts:
Luwalhati R. Antonino, then a member of the House of
Representatives representing the First District of the Province of South
Cotabato, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao. She alleged that anomalous real estate transactions involving
the Magsaysay Park at General Santos City and questionable payments of
transfer taxes prejudicial to the government had been entertained into
between certain parties. She then requested the Ombudsman to
investigate the petitioner, Retired Brig. Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., then
President of the AFP-RSBS, together with twenty-seven (27) other persons
for conspiracy in misappropriating AFP-RSBS funds and in defrauding the
government millions of pesos in capital gains and documentary stamp
taxes.
Several informations was filed for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
Falsification of Public Documents, defined and penalized under paragraph
4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
The law firm of Albano & Associates filed a Notice of Appearance as
private prosecutors in all the aforementioned cases for the Association of
Generals and Flag Officers, Inc. (AGFOI). The petitioner opposed the
appearance of the law firm contending that charges brought against him
were purely public crimes which did not involve damage or injury to any
private party; thus, no civil liability had arisen and under the rules an
offended party may be allowed to intervene through a special prosecutor
only in those cases where there is civil liability arising from the criminal
offense charged. The law office on the other hand averred in their comment
that since the one they are representing our members and investors of the
AFP-RSBS their interest will be prejudiced on the matter.
The sandiganbayan sided with the law firm and let them appear, the
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied hence this
petition.
Issue:
WON members of the AGFOI are to be considered as offended party
Held:
warrants protection from the courts. Significantly, under the present Rules
of Court,[15] complainants in B.P. 22 cases have to pay filing fees upon the
commencement of such cases in court to protect their interest.
Lee vs Lee G.R. No. 181658
Facts:
There is a perjury case filed against the accused for sworing under
oath that it holds a TCT on a certain parcel of land but only lost it and seeks
to recover it.
At the trial, Atty. Augusto M. Macam appeared as counsel for
respondent and as private prosecutor with the consent and under the
control and supervision of the public prosecutor. After the prosecutions
presentation of its first witness in the person of Atty. Ronaldo Viesca, Jr.,20
a lawyer from the Land Registration Authority, petitioners counsel moved in
open court that respondent and her lawyer in this case should be excluded
from participating in the case since perjury is a public offense. Said motion
was vehemently opposed by Atty. Macam.21 In its Order22 dated May 7,
2003, the MeTC gave both the defense and the prosecution the opportunity
to submit their motion and comment respectively as regards the issue
raised by petitioners counsel.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion asserting that in the crime of
perjury, there is no mention of any private offended party. As such, a private
prosecutor cannot intervene for the prosecution in this case. Petitioner
argued that perjury is a crime against public interest where the offended
party is the State alone.
The MeTC denied the Omnibus Motion in the Order and also denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration. A petition was filed to the CA and
ruled in favor of respondent. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was
denied hence this petition.
Issue:
WON there is a private offended party on perjury cases.
Held:
The court finds the petition without merit and avering that there is a
offended party
In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody of TCT
No. 232238 covering CHIs property and its loss through inadvertence, if
found to be perjured is, without doubt, injurious to respondents personal
credibility and reputation insofar as her faithful performance of the duties
and responsibilities of a Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. The potential
injury to the corporation itself is likewise undeniable as the court-ordered
issuance of a new owners duplicate of TCT No. 232238 was only averted
by respondents timely discovery of the case filed by petitioner in the RTC.
Whether public or private crimes are involved, it is erroneous for the
trial court to consider the intervention of the offended party by counsel as
merely a matter of tolerance. Thus, where the private prosecution has
asserted its right to intervene in the proceedings, that right must be
respected. The right reserved by the Rules to the offended party is that of
intervening for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the
criminal act and not of demanding punishment of the accused. Such
intervention, moreover, is always subject to the direction and control of the
public prosecutor.
People vs Santiago G.R. No. L-80778
Facts:
An information for violation of P.D. No. 772 was filed by the Assistant
City Fiscal of Quezon City, with the approval of the city fiscal, in the RTC of
the same city against Segundina Rosario y Sembrano.
Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and a pre-trial
conference was held on August 14, 1987 wherein the accused informed the
court that she has a title, a building permit and survey plan covering the
subject land.
The trial court found the herein accused as innocent and thus
acquitted the same even without rendering a trial on the merits. The herein
petition for certiorari filed by the counsel for the private offended party, U.P.,
in behalf of the People of the Philippines.
Issue:
WON U.P., as the private offended party, can file this special civil action for
certiorari questioning the validity of said decision of the trial court
Held:
The court held that the question be answered in the affirmative.
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is
limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a
criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an
appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the
State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. 11 The private offended
party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended
party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the
accused.
In a special civil action for certiorari the petition may be filed by the
person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the
private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in
the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioning the decision or action respondent court on jurisdictional
grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name
of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of
said complainant.
The Solicitor General upheld the right of U.P. to file the petition as an
aggrieved party.
Perez vs Hagonoy G.R. No. 126210
Facts:
The respondent company found anomalies unearthed by the auditing
firm prompted and thus filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the
aforementioned employees of the money shop and two outsiders, Susan
Jordan and Brigida Mangahas.
The prosecutor found a prima facie case against other respondents
except the Susa Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. The petitioner moved for a
motion for reconsideration with the Secretary of Justice. The motion was
granted and a complaint was filed for estafa. Then the secretary of justice
then issued an order to exclude the petitioner as one of the accused in the
case and seek the dismissal of the case in court and exclude the petitioner
as one of the accused because of lack of evidence.
On January 13, 1995, presiding Judge O. Roy A. Masadao of the said
court granted the said motion. Private respondent assailed the dismissal of
the case against the petitioner in a motion for reconsideration filed in the
RTC. However, the trial court denied the said motion in an Order dated
February 21, 1995 after finding that the private respondent, as private
complainant, had no legal personality to question the dismissal of the
criminal charges against the petitioner.
Alleging that Judge Masadao had issued the said order with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, private respondent
filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision annulling and setting aside
the assailed Order of February 21, 1995 and directing Judge Masadao to
resolve with dispatch the private respondent's motion for reconsideration on
the basis of its merit or lack thereof. Hence this petition to the higher court.
Issue:
WON the private respondent, as private complainant, in a criminal case has
the legal personality to question the dismissal by the trial judge of the
criminal charges against herein petitioner upon the motion filed by the
prosecutor
Held:
Yes, the said private respondent can
Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People
or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a
special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings
before the courts of law.
It follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in this case may file
a special civil action for certiorari, then with more reason does it have legal
personality to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial court
dismissing the criminal charges against the petitioner. In fact, as a general
rule, a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is
first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct
its assigned errors.
People vs Placer
Facts:
Issue:
Held: