CASE NO.

10
Jimenez vs Hon. Sorongon

Facts:
 Jimenez (Petitioner) is the president of Unlad Shipping and Management Corporation a local manning agency, while
Antzoulatos, Alamil, Gaza and Avgoustis are the respondents herein and are some of the listed incorporators
of Tsakos Maritime Services Inc, a local manning agency Aug. 19, 2013.

 Petitioner files a complaint affidavit with the office of the prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against the
respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. Respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their
joint counter-affidavit and denying the complaint.

 Avgoustis and Alamil did not submit any counter affidavit. An Information for the said crime was filed before
the RTC-Mandaluyong.

 Dec. 4, 2004 the prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information and respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their comment
to the opposition however the judge denied the motion as it found existence of probable cause and issued warrants
against the respondents.

 Respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause to defer the enforcement of the warrants or arrest.
Petitioner filed his opposition with the motion to expunge, contending that Alamil being a fugitive from justice had no standing
to seek any relief and that the RTC found probable cause.

 Respondent filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Umali for being biased or partial. The said judge
voluntarily inhibit herself and the case was re-raffled to Judge Sorongon.

 On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing the existence of probable cause to prosecute the
respondents.

 On April 26, 2006 moved to expunge the motion for being prohibited pleading since the motion did not have any conformity from
the city prosecutor. In its May 10, 2006 order, the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding that the petitioner
merely reiterated arguments in issues that had been finally decided.

 On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the petitioner’s notice of appeal since the public prosecutor did not
authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case. On June 27, 2006, the petitioner filed his comment to the
motion to expunge, claiming that, as the offended party, he has the right to appeal the RTC order dismissing the case; the
respondents’ fraudulent acts in forming TMSI greatly prejudiced him.

Issue:
 Whether or not the petitioner has the legal personality to assail the dismissal of the case

Held:
 No. It is well settled that the real party in interest is the People of the Philippines and is represented by the prosecutors. All criminal
actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In
appeals of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General is the appellate counsel
of the People; The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the Office of the Solicitor General can represent the
People in criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court.