CARMENCITA G. CARIÑO G.R. No. 176084
Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr.,* and,
Reyes, JJ.
MERLIN DE CAS
Respondent. Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and set
aside the August 18, 2006 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29523 dismissing the petition as well as
the December 29, 2006 Resolution[2] denying
the Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner
Carmencita G. Cariño filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against
respondent Merlin de Castro before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. After conducting preliminary investigation,
Assistant City Prosecutor Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr., issued a Resolution finding
prima facie evidence and recommending respondent’s indictment. Accordingly, respondent was charged with five
(5) counts of violation of BP 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 13.
During arraignment, respondent
manifested her intention to file a Motion for Preliminary Determination of
Existence of Probable Cause which was granted.
Accordingly, respondent’s arraignment was deferred. Petitioner was required to file comment on
the Motion for Preliminary Determination of Existence of Probable Cause. However, instead of a comment, petitioner filed
a motion for extension which was denied for being a prohibited pleading under
the Rule on Summary Procedure.
In an Order[3]
dated August 30, 2004, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 13 found
that the checks were issued by respondent without valuable consideration; that
petitioner was not authorized to collect rental payments from respondent; and
that consequently, respondent can legally refuse payment on the ground that
said checks were issued without valuable and legal consideration. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, finding no probable cause against the accused for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, the instant cases are DISMISSED.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner appealed to the Regional
Trial Court. In a Decision[5]
dated February 28, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40,
affirmed the Decision of the court a quo
and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
It held that petitioner failed to controvert the Joint-Affidavit
executed by the owners of the property that they did not authorize petitioner
to lease their property and to collect rentals thereon. Hence, the checks were issued for a
non-existing account or without legal and valuable consideration.
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the Regional Trial Court in an Order[6]
dated
Thereafter,
petitioner, through counsel and with the conformity of Asst. City Prosecutor, Sawadjaan
Issan, filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. However, in the assailed Decision dated
We
note that the instant petition for review suffers from a basic infirmity of
having been filed merely by the private prosecutor or counsel of the private
complainant, though with the conformity of the Assistant City Prosecutor, and
not by the authorized representative of the People of the
We emphasize that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General. Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides, viz.:
“SEC.
35. Powers
and Functions. – The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the
Government of the
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.”
Jurisprudence has been consistent on this point so much so that in the City Fiscal of Tacloban vs. Espina, it was held:
“Under
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court all criminal actions commenced by
complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of
the fiscal. The fiscal represents the
People of the
As
succinctly observed by the Solicitor General, petitioner has no authority to
file the petition in this Court. It is
only the Solicitor General who can bring or defend such actions on behalf of
the Republic of the
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On
In its Comment,[9]
the OSG noted thus:
1. A thorough examination of petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and an assiduous re-evaluation of the records and the applicable laws and jurisprudence reveal that there is no basis, in fact or in law, there being no new and substantial matter not already considered and ruled upon by this Honorable Court is pleaded that would warrant a re-examination, much less, the modification or reversal of the Decision dated August 18, 2006 of this Honorable Court which dismissed petitioner’s petition for review dated August 31, 2005. Said petition was filed merely by the private prosecutor, and not by the authorized representative of the People of the Philippines – the Office of the Solicitor General which is solely vested with the authority to represent the People in appeals of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code.
2. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
is just a reiteration and rehash of the errors assigned and discussed in the
petition for review dated
3. Considering that this Honorable Court had carefully scrutinized and studied the records as well as weighed and assessed the arguments of both parties before rendering the assailed Decision, petitioner’s motion has no leg to stand on. Hence, this Honorable Court is correct in dismissing the petition.[10]
On
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN ISSUING THE DECISION PROMULGATED ON
II.
THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THIS MOST HONORABLE COURT.[11]
The petition lacks merit.
In criminal proceedings on appeal in
the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the
People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under Presidential Decree No. 478, among the
specific powers and functions of the OSG was to “represent the government in
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” This provision has been carried over to the
Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof.[12] Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate
counsel of the People of the
Although the petition for review
before the Court of Appeals was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City
Prosecutor, such conformity is insufficient, as the rules and jurisprudence mandate
that the same should be filed by the Solicitor General.
While a private prosecutor may be
allowed to intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals
or the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate to the interest of the
People, hence, he cannot be permitted to adopt a position contrary to that of
the Solicitor General. To do so would be
tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the
criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.[14]
In the instant case, the Solicitor
General opined that petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for
review and that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. As such, the Assistant City Prosecutor or the
private prosecutor cannot take a contrary view.
We are cognizant of our ruling in the
cases of Perez v. Hagonoy,[15] Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,[16] People v. Santiago,[17]
and Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[18]
where we held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic or represent the People or state in criminal proceedings pending in
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
At the same time, we acknowledged in those cases that a private offended
party, in the interest of substantial justice, and where there appears to be a
grave error committed by the judge, or where there is lack of due process, may
allow and give due course to the petition filed. However, the special circumstances prevailing
in the abovementioned cases are not present in the instant case. In those cases, the petitioners availed of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
In the instant case, the petition was filed under Rule 45. Moreover, both the Metropolitan Trial Court
and the Regional Trial Court found that petitioner was not duly authorized by
the owner of the subject property to collect and receive rentals thereon. Thus, not only were the checks without
valuable consideration; they were also issued for a non-existing account. With these undisputed findings, we cannot
reconcile petitioner’s allegation that she is the aggrieved party. Finally, petitioner cannot validly claim that
she was denied due process considering that she availed of every opportunity to
present her case. Thus, we find no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts in dismissing the
complaints.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.
[1] Rollo, pp. 27-37; penned by Associate
Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador.
[2]
[3] CA
rollo, pp. 35-37; penned by Judge
Manuel R. Recto.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo , pp. 33-34.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Sec. 35 of which specifically provides:
SEC.
35. Powers and Functions. – The
Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; x x x.
[13] Macasaet v. People, G.R. No. 156747,
[14] Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, G.R. No. L-41213,
[15]
G.R. No. 126210,
[16]
G.R. No. 149357,
[17]
G.R. No. 80778,
[18]
G.R. No. 134504,