MAMERTO AUSTRIA vs AAA and BBB
GR 205275
Facts:
In 2006, the RTC convicted Mamerto Austria, a school teacher, of five counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-year old female students. He was acquitted through joint orders. private complainants filed a special civil action for certiorari to the CA alleging that the presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering Joint Orders of acquittal which merely recited the contents of the accused's motion for reconsideration without stating any factual and legal basis. CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Mamerto sought for a reconsideration but was denied. He then filed for a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 invoking his right against double jeopardy and reiterates that the Joint Orders of acquittal are already final and not subject to review.
Mamerto also maintains that private complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal. The OSG in its comment stated that the private complainant is a mere witness in the criminal proceedings and he or she cannot assail the acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the criminal case,nor interlocutory order with respect to the criminal aspect of the case. The private offended party seeking to elevate a criminal case before the Court and the CA must seek the OSG's conformity or concurrence. The private complainant's remedy assailing the criminal aspect of the case without the intervention of the OSG is perforce dismissible.
However, the OSG clarifies that the private complainant may appeal insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned, or file a special civil action for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case.
The OSG gives its conformity to the petition for certiorari that private complainants filed before the CA. The OSG argues that the trial court's Joint Orders are void for failure to state clearly the factual and legal bases of Mamerto's acquittal.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the private complainant’s interest is limited only to the civil aspect of the case.
2. Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion discretion when it disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
Ruling:
1. YES.
In any criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State before the Supreme Court (SC) and the CA. The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the state is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action and not the private complainant. The interest of the private offended party is restricted only to the civil liability of the accused.
The private complainant may file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case. private complainant has no personality to file a petition for certiorari before the CA, without participation of the OSG, to question the trial court's dismissal of the criminal charge.
The Court did not abandon the well-established distinction in our legal system that the People, through the OSG, has legal interest over the criminal aspect of the proceedings, whereas the private complainant has legal interest over the civil aspect of the case. the OSG must be given the opportunity to be heard on how the remedies that private complainants sought before the SC and the CA might affect the interest of the People in the criminal aspect of the case.
In this case, private complainants filed a petition for certiorari before the CA without the OSG's prior conformity. They question the Joint Orders acquitting Mamerto for failure to meet the standard set forth in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Given the divergent decisions on the private complainant's legal standing in a criminal case, private complainants cannot be faulted when they relied on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the case through a petition for certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process. Hence, the Court should not dismiss their remedy.
In any event, the OSG joined the cause of private complainants, and gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari that the private complainants filed before the CA. To avoid further delay, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to resolve the issues of whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, and whether there is a violation of Mamerto' s right against double jeopardy.
2. YES. The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A decision that does not dearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.
Verily, the CA properly struck down as a nullity the RTC's Joint Orders which simply copied the allegations of Mamerto in his motions for reconsideration and memoranda followed by a conclusion "that the prosecution miserably failed to overcome the legal presumption of innocence of the accused beyond cavil <!f reasonable doubt". The Joint Orders are mere recital of facts with a dispositive portion. They contained neither an analysis of the evidence nor a reference to any legal basis for the conclusion.
It is settled that a void judgment of acquittal has no legal effect and does not te1minate the case. n contemplation of law, it is non-existent as if no judgment had been rendered at all. Thus, Mamerto's right against double jeopardy is not violated.
The SC released rules with respect to the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:
1) The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
The reviewing court shall require the. OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant's appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute (i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction, elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, identity of the perpetrator of the crime, modification of penalty, and other questions that will require a review of themsubstantive merits of the criminal proceedings, or the nullification/reversal of the entire ruling. or cause the reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle wiith the prosecution of the offense, among other things).
The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended party. The judgment: or order of the reviewing court granting the private complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
(2) The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments 77 Galm an v. Sandlganbayan, 228 Phil. 42 ( l 9f{6). Decision 34 G.R. No. 205275 or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG's conformity.
The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the reglementary period to appeal or file .· a petition for certiorari. The private complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG' s conformity as proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period. Othe1wise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the request for conformity, the Comi shall dismiss the appeal or petition for certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
(3) The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private complainant's petition for certiorariquestioning the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.
( 4) These guidelines shall be prospective in application.