Ramiscal vs hon. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 140576-99.

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:

The court moves to the negative.

The offended party may be the State or any of its instrumentalities,
including local governments or government-owned or controlled
corporations, such as the AFP-RSBS, which, under substantive laws, are
entitled to restitution of their properties or funds, reparation, or
indemnification.
The offended party may also be a private individual whose person,
right, house, liberty or property was actually or directly injured by the same
punishable act or omission of the accused, or that corporate entity which is
damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained of. Such party must be
one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of the
action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse
if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand and
the accused will be protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such
interest must not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential.
The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on a desire
to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.
Hence, even if the members of AGFOI may also be members or
beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS, the respondent AGFOI does not have a
legal right to intervene in the criminal cases merely and solely to enforce
and/or protect the constitutional right of such members to have access to
the records of AFP-RSBS. Neither are such members entitled to intervene
therein simply because the funds of the AFP-RSBS are public or
government funds. It must be stressed that any interest of the members of
the AFP-RSBS over its funds or property is merely inchoate and incidental.
Such funds belong to the AFP-RSBS which has a juridical personality
separate and independent of its members/beneficiaries.

Rodriguez vs Gadiane G.R. No. 152903

Facts:
Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private complainant in a
criminal case filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr.
(respondents), for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). The
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) hearing the complaint had suspended the

criminal proceeding on the ground that a prejudicial question was posed in

a separate civil case then pending. On 28 February 2001, petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 12, seeking to set aside the MTC order of suspension.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the petition was filed by the private complainant, instead of the government
prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in criminal cases.
The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or signature of
the government prosecutor. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was
denied.
Issue:
Won the petitioner is an offended party who has interest on the case
Held:
Yes, the petitioner in this case is considered an offended party.
In a long line of cases, this Court construed the term aggrieved
parties to include the State and the private offended party or complainant.
It was held that the offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient
interest and personality as "person(s) aggrieved" to file the special civil
action of prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65.
Apropos thereto is the case cited by petitioner, De la Rosa v. Court of
Appeals,[10] wherein it was categorically stated that the aggrieved parties
are the State and the private offended party or complainant.
In this case, there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in
the litigation of the civil aspect of the case against respondents. Section
1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the
criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. Hence, the possible conviction of respondents
would concurrently provide a judgment for damages in favor of petitioner.
The suspension of the criminal case which petitioner decries would
necessarily cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case
which precisely is the interest and concern of petitioner. Such interest

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: