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 otabato, file! a omplaint"Affi!avit with the #ffice of the #mbu!sman for $in!anao. She allege! that anomalous real estate transactions involving the $agsa%sa% Par& at 'eneral Santos it% an! (uestionable pa%ments of transf transfer er ta)es ta)es pre*u!ic pre*u!icial ial to the governm government ent ha! been entert entertaine aine! ! into into betw betwee een n cert certai ain n part partie ies. s. She She then then re(u re(ues este te! ! the the #mbu #mbu!s !sm man to investigate the petitioner, Retire! +rig. 'en. ose S. Ramiscal, r., then Presi!ent of the AFP"RS+S, together with twent%"seven -/0 other persons for conspirac% conspirac% in misappropriat misappropriating ing AFP"RS+S AFP"RS+S fun!s an! in !efrau!ing !efrau!ing the governm government ent millio millions ns of pesos pesos in capital capital gains gains an! !ocume !ocumentar ntar% % stamp stamp ta)es. Several informations was file! for violation of Section 1-e0 of Rep. Act 2o. 1345, otherwise &nown as the Anti"'raft an! orrupt Practices Act an! Falsificati Falsification on of Public Documents, Documents, !efine! an! penali6e! penali6e! un!er paragraph 7, Article 4/4 of the Revise! Penal o!e. o!e . 8he law firm of Albano 9 Associates Associates file! a 2otice 2otice of Appearance Appearance as private prosecutors in all the aforementione! cases for the Association of 'ener 'eneral als s an! Flag Flag #ffi #ffice cers rs,, nc. nc. -A'F -A'F# #0. 0. 8he 8he petit petitio ioner ner oppos oppose! e! the the appearance of the law firm conten!ing that charges brought against him were purel% public crimes which !i! not involve !amage or in*ur% to an% priva private te part% part%;; thus thus,, no civi civill liabi liabili lit% t% ha! ha! aris arisen en an! an! un!e un!err the the rules rules an offen!e! part% ma% be allowe! to intervene through a special prosecutor onl% in those cases where there is civil liabilit% arising from the criminal offense charge!. 8he law office on the other han! averre! in their comment that since the one the% are representing representing our members an! investors of the AFP"RS+S their interest will be pre*u!ice! on the matter. matter. 8he san!iganba%an si!e! with the law firm an! let them appear, the petitioner file! a motion for reconsi!eration but was !enie! hence this petition. ssue: <#2 members of the A'F# are to be consi!ere! as offen!e! part% Hel!:
8he court moves to the negative. 8he offen!e! part% ma% be the State or an% of its instrumentalities, inclu!ing local governments or government"owne! or controlle! corporations, such as the AFP"RS+S, which, un!er substantive laws, are entitle! to restitution of their properties or fun!s, reparation, or in!emnification. 8he offen!e! part% ma% also be a private in!ivi!ual whose person, right, house, libert% or propert% was actuall% or !irectl% in*ure! b% the same punishable act or omission of the accuse!, or that corporate entit% which is !amage! or in*ure! b% the !elictual acts complaine! of. Such part% must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the sub*ect matter of the action as will entitle him to recourse un!er the substantive law, to recourse if the evi!ence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the !eman! an! the accuse! will be protecte! b% the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere e)pectanc%, subor!inate or inconse(uential. 8he interest of the part% must be personal; an! not one base! on a !esire to vin!icate the constitutional right of some thir! an! unrelate! part%. Hence, even if the members of A'F# ma% also be members or beneficiaries of the AFP"RS+S, the respon!ent A'F# !oes not have a legal right to intervene in the criminal cases merel% an! solel% to enforce an!=or protect the constitutional right of such members to have access to the recor!s of AFP"RS+S. 2either are such members entitle! to intervene therein simpl% because the fun!s of the AFP"RS+S are public or government fun!s. t must be stresse! that an% interest of the members of the AFP"RS+S over its fun!s or propert% is merel% inchoate an! inci!ental. Such fun!s belong to the AFP"RS+S which has a *uri!ical personalit% separate an! in!epen!ent of its members=beneficiaries.
Rodrigue vs Gadiane G.R. No. 15!90" Facts: 8homasita Ro!rigue6 -petitioner0 was the private complainant in a criminal case file! against Rolan!o 'a!iane an! Ricar!o Rafols, r. -respon!ents0, for violation of +atas Pambansa +ilang -+.P. 0. 8he $unicipal 8rial ourt -$80 hearing the complaint ha! suspen!e! the
criminal procee!ing on the groun! that a pre*u!icial (uestion was pose! in a separate civil case then pen!ing. #n > Februar% 334, petitioner file! a petition for certiorari un!er Rule ?@ before the Regional 8rial ourt -R80, +ranch 4, see&ing to set asi!e the $8 or!er of suspension. Respon!ents file! a motion to !ismiss the petition on the groun! that the petition was file! b% the private complainant, instea! of the government prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines in criminal cases. 8he R8 !ismisse! the petition for lac& of conformit% or signature of the government prosecutor. Petitioner move! for reconsi!eration but it was !enie!. ssue:
warrants protection from the courts. Significantl%, un!er the present Rules of ourt,C4@ complainants in +.P. cases have to pa% filing fees upon the commencement of such cases in court to protect their interest. #ee vs #ee G.R. No. 1$165$ Facts: 8here is a per*ur% case file! against the accuse! for sworing un!er oath that it hol!s a 88 on a certain parcel of lan! but onl% lost it an! see&s to recover it. At the trial, Att%. Augusto $. $acam appeare! as counsel for respon!ent an! as private prosecutor with the consent an! un!er the control an! supervision of the public prosecutor. After the prosecutionEs presentation of its first witness in the person of Att%. Ronal!o iesca, r.,3 a law%er from the Lan! Registration Authorit%, petitionerEs counsel move! in open court that respon!ent an! her law%er in this case shoul! be e)clu!e! from participating in the case since per*ur% is a public offense. Sai! motion was vehementl% oppose! b% Att%. $acam.4 n its #r!er !ate! $a% /, 331, the $e8 gave both the !efense an! the prosecution the opportunit% to submit their motion an! comment respectivel% as regar!s the issue raise! b% petitionerEs counsel. Petitioner file! an #mnibus $otion asserting that in the crime of per*ur%, there is no mention of an% private offen!e! part%. As such, a private prosecutor cannot intervene for the prosecution in this case. Petitioner argue! that per*ur% is a crime against public interest where the offen!e! part% is the State alone. 8he $e8 !enie! the #mnibus $otion in the #r!er an! also !enie! petitionerEs motion for reconsi!eration. A petition was file! to the A an! rule! in favor of respon!ent. A motion for reconsi!eration was file! but was !enie! hence this petition. ssue: <#2 there is a private offen!e! part% on per*ur% cases.
Hel!: 8he court fin!s the petition without merit an! avering that there is a offen!e! part% n this case, the statement of petitioner regar!ing his custo!% of 88 2o. 11> covering HEs propert% an! its loss through ina!vertence, if foun! to be per*ure! is, without !oubt, in*urious to respon!entEs personal cre!ibilit% an! reputation insofar as her faithful performance of the !uties an! responsibilities of a +oar! $ember an! 8reasurer of H. 8he potential in*ur% to the corporation itself is li&ewise un!eniable as the court"or!ere! issuance of a new ownerEs !uplicate of 88 2o. 11> was onl% averte! b% respon!entEs timel% !iscover% of the case file! b% petitioner in the R8. / wherein the accuse! informe! the court that she has a title, a buil!ing permit an! surve% plan covering the sub*ect lan!. 8he trial court foun! the herein accuse! as innocent an! thus ac(uitte! the same even without ren!ering a trial on the merits. 8he herein petition for certiorari file! b% the counsel for the private offen!e! part%, .P., in behalf of the People of the Philippines.
ssue: <#2 .P., as the private offen!e! part%, can file this special civil action for certiorari (uestioning the vali!it% of sai! !ecision of the trial court Hel!: 8he court hel! that the (uestion be answere! in the affirmative. t is well"settle! that in criminal cases where the offen!e! part% is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offen!e! part% is limite! to the civil liabilit%. 8hus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainantIs role is limite! to that of a witness for the prosecution. f a criminal case is !ismisse! b% the trial court or if there is an ac(uittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect ma% be un!erta&en onl% b% the State through the Solicitor 'eneral. #nl% the Solicitor 'eneral ma% represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. 11 8he private offen!e! part% or complainant ma% not ta&e such appeal. However, the sai! offen!e! part% or complainant ma% appeal the civil aspect !espite the ac(uittal of the accuse!. n a special civil action for certiorari the petition ma% be file! b% the person aggrieve!. n such case, the aggrieve! parties are the State an! the private offen!e! part% or complainant. 8he complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he ma% file such special civil action (uestioning the !ecision or action respon!ent court on *uris!ictional groun!s. n so !oing, complainant shoul! not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. 8he action ma% be prosecute! in name of sai! complainant. 8he Solicitor 'eneral uphel! the right of .P. to file the petition as an aggrieve! part%. %ere vs (agonoy G.R. No. 1!6!10 Facts: 8he respon!ent compan% foun! anomalies unearthe! b% the au!iting firm prompte! an! thus file! an affi!avit"complaint for estafa against the aforementione! emplo%ees of the mone% shop an! two outsi!ers, Susan or!an an! +rigi!a $angahas. 8he prosecutor foun! a prima facie case against other respon!ents e)cept the Susa or!an an! +rigi!a $angahas. 8he petitioner move! for a
motion for reconsi!eration with the Secretar% of ustice. 8he motion was grante! an! a complaint was file! for estafa. 8hen the secretar% of *ustice then issue! an or!er to e)clu!e the petitioner as one of the accuse! in the case an! see& the !ismissal of the case in court an! e)clu!e the petitioner as one of the accuse! because of lac& of evi!ence. #n anuar% 41, 455@, presi!ing u!ge #. Ro% A. $asa!ao of the sai! court grante! the sai! motion. Private respon!ent assaile! the !ismissal of the case against the petitioner in a motion for reconsi!eration file! in the R8. However, the trial court !enie! the sai! motion in an #r!er !ate! Februar% 4, 455@ after fin!ing that the private respon!ent, as private complainant, ha! no legal personalit% to (uestion the !ismissal of the criminal charges against the petitioner. Alleging that u!ge $asa!ao ha! issue! the sai! or!er with grave abuse of !iscretion amounting to lac& of *uris!iction, private respon!ent file! a petition for certiorari an! man!amus. 8he ourt of Appeals ren!ere! a !ecision annulling an! setting asi!e the assaile! #r!er of Februar% 4, 455@ an! !irecting u!ge $asa!ao to resolve with !ispatch the private respon!entIs motion for reconsi!eration on the basis of its merit or lac& thereof. Hence this petition to the higher court. ssue: <#2 the private respon!ent, as private complainant, in a criminal case has the legal personalit% to (uestion the !ismissal b% the trial *u!ge of the criminal charges against herein petitioner upon the motion file! b% the prosecutor Hel!: es, the sai! private respon!ent can 8hus, while it is onl% the Solicitor 'eneral that ma% bring or !efen! actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal procee!ings pen!ing in the Supreme ourt an! the ourt of Appeals, the private offen!e! part% retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal procee!ings before the courts of law.
t follows, therefore, that if the private respon!ent in this case ma% file a special civil action for certiorari, then with more reason !oes it have legal personalit% to move for a reconsi!eration of the or!er of the trial court !ismissing the criminal charges against the petitioner. n fact, as a general rule, a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsi!eration is first file! before the respon!ent tribunal, to allow it an opportunit% to correct its assigne! errors. People vs Placer Facts: ssue: Hel!:
