G.R. No. 205275 - MAMERTO AUSTRIA, VS. AAA AND BBB.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED . The assailed Joint Orders both dated Augusts 15, 2008 rendered by public respondent Judge De Joya Mayor acquitting private respondent Austria of Acts of Lasciviousness are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Joint Decision rendered by Hon. Elihu Ybanez dated October 17 [, 2006] in Criminal Case Nos. 1216, 1221 & 1222 and the Joint Decision dated October 20, 2006 in Criminal Case Nos. 1342 & 1343 are hereby REINSTATED . SO ORDERED . [10] (Emphases supplied) Mamerto sought for a reconsideration but was denied. [11] Hence this Petition for Review on Certiorari [12] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Mamerto invokes his right against double jeopardy and reiterates that the Joint Orders of acquittal are already final and not subject to review. Mamerto maintains that private complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal. On August 3, 2021, the Court required the OSG to file a comment on the private complainant's legal standing in a criminal case. [13] In its Comment, [14] the OSG avers that the prosecution and punishment of crimes is the State's assertion of its sovereign authority to enforce penal laws. The People of the Philippines are the real parties-in-interest in a criminal action represented by its statutorily authorized agents, namely, the OSG and the public prosecutors. On the other hand, the interest of the private offended party in a criminal case is limited only to the civil liability of the accused. The fusion of the civil aspect in a criminal action is merely a procedural rule. 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, or 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. [15] Also, the OSG points out that the public prosecutor represents the State in a criminal case before the trial court, and that it is not furnished with copies of records during the trial stage. The OSG only becomes aware of the outcome of the trial when the Office of the Prosecutor General (OPG) or the private complainant endorses the case. Consequently, the OSG is left with limited time to study the case before the lapse of the period to assail the judgment or order in a criminal case. Hence, the OSG recommends that the reglementary period to question the criminal aspect of the case must be reckoned from the OSG's receipt of the endorsement from the OPG or request from the private offended party. In the alternative, the OSG suggests that it should always be required to file a comment on the appeal or petition filed by the private complainant emanating from criminal action based on