ELVIRA O. ONG Petitioner, vs. JOSE CASIM GENIO, Respondent. Facts:
Ong filed a criminal complaint a gainst Genio for Robbery which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Makati City. owever, pursuant to the Resolutions of the !epartment of "ustice, respondent was charged with the crime of Robbery in an #nformation which reads$ %hat in or about and sometime the month of "anuary, &''(, in the City of Makati, the above)named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest and carry away kitchen a nd canteen e*uipment as well as her personal things valued at Php +'','''.'', belonging to complainant, -#R/ -#R/ O. O0G, to the damage and pre1udice of the said owner in the aforementioned amount of Php +'','''.''. Respondent filed a Motion to !ismiss the Case for -ack of Probable Cause Pursuant to 2ec. 34a5, Rule 66& of the Rules of Court and, in iew of Compelling Grounds for the !ismissal of the Case to old in /beyance the #ssuance of the 7arrant of /rrest 4Motion to !ismiss5. Petitioner filed an Opposition to respondent8s Motion to !ismiss. R%C of Makati City dismissed the case because the other elements of the crime of Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to gain, and either violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things, were n ot specifically alleged in the #nformation filed against respondent. !espite the dismissal of the case, respondent filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that the #nformation should be dismissed in its entirety for l ack of probable cause. Petitioner filed her O pposition to this motion. R%C granted respondent9s Partial Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause pursuant to 2ection 34a5, Rule 66& of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner filed her MR, claiming that the R%C erred in relying on 2ection 34a5, Rule 66& of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the said provision relates to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the determination of probable cause for the filing of the #nformation against respondent, which is e:ecutive in nature, a power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor. R%C denied petitioner9s MR, holding that the provision authori;es the R%C to evaluate not only the resolution of the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation and eventually filed the #nformation in court, but also the evidence upon which the resolution was based. #n the event that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause, the R%C may dismiss the case. /ggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the the C/. Respondent filed a Motion to !ismiss the petition, raising the issue of lack of personality of petitioner to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case, because the authority to do so lies e:clusively with the 2tate as represented by the O2G. C/ observed that the People of the Philippines was i mpleaded as petitioner without showing, however, the O2G8s participation. %hus, the C/ ordered petitioner to furnish the O2G with a copy of the Petition, and the latter to comment thereon. O2G filed its Comment, taking the stand of respondent that only the 2olicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines filed before the C/ or the 2upreme Court. %he O2G submitted that, for bei ng fatally defective, the said Petition should be dismissed insofar as the criminal aspect was concerned, without pre1udice to the right of petitioner to pursue the civil aspect of the case. C/ rendered its Resolution, dismissing the case without pre1udice to the filing of a petition on the civil aspect thereof on the basis of the arguments raised by both respondent and the O2G. Petitioner filed an MR which the C/ denied.
Issue: 7%R % P%#%#O0R /2 % PR#/% O<<0!! P/R%= #0 / CR#M#0/- C/2 /2 0O
PR2O0/-#%= %O -/% % C/2 %O % CO>R% O< /PP/-2 7#%O>% % COM2! #2 /RR/#G0! 7%R % RG#O0/- %R#/- CO>R% /2 />%OR#%= %O !#2M#22 % #00! O< -/C@ O< PRO?/?- C/>2 70 #% /2 PR#O>2-= CO0C->!! %/% %/% % 2/M #0
2ection (A465, Chapter 6&, %itle ###, ?ook # of the /dministrative Code states that the O2G shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter re*uiring the services of lawyers. -ikewise, the 2olicitor General shall represent the Government in this Court and the C/ in all criminal proceedings. 7hile there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process, this e:ceptional circumstance does not obtain in the instant case. ?efore this Court, petitioner failed to advance any 1ustification or e:cuse why she failed to seek the assistance of the O2G when she sought relief from the C/, other than the personal belief that the O2G was burdened with so many cases. %hus, we find no reversible error to disturb the C/8s ruling. Petitioner, however, however, is not without any recourse. #n Rodrigue; v. Gadiane, we held$ #t is well)settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the 2tate, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. %hus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant8s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. #f a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an ac*uittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the 2tate through the 2olicitor General. Only the 2olicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. %he private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. owever, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the ac*uittal of the accused. #n a special civil action for certiorari filed under 2ection 6, Rule 3A of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of 1urisdiction the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. #n such case, the aggrieved parties are the 2tate and the private offended party or complainant. %he complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action *uestioning the decision or action of the respondent court on 1urisdictional grounds. #n so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. %he action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. On this ground alone, the instant Petition fails. ven on the issue of the R%C8s dismissal of the case, the Petition ought to be denied. 2ection 34a5, Rule 66& of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly provides$ Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the R%C 1udge, upon the filing of an #nformation, has the following options$ 465 dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable causeB 4&5 if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrestB and 4(5 in case of dou bt as to the e:istence of probable cause, order
the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty days from the filing of the information. 1avvphi1
#t bears stressing that the 1udge is re*uired to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. e may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. %his, the R%C 1udge clearly complied with in this case.
