CASE DIGEST
Austria v. AAA and BBB
G.R. No. 205275, [June 28, 2022]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Double Jeopardy;
legal personality to appeal despite Acquittal; OSG Intervention
The private offended party may file an
appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil
liability of the accused is concerned. Also, the private complainant may file a
special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG,
but only to the end of preserving his or her interest in the civil aspect of
the case.No violation of double jeopardy in assailing a decision rendered in
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Austria, a pubic school teacher, was convicted of 5 counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-year-old female students. On his motion for reconsideration, he was acquitted by the new presiding judge who resolved the motion. The private complainants a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Thus, the private complainants filed a special civil action for certiorari Rule 65 to the CA. They alleged that the new presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the Joint Orders of acquittal which merely recited the contents of the accused's motion for reconsideration without stating any factual and legal basis. The CA declared the judgment of acquittal as void and that double jeopardy did not attach.
Austria filed a petition with the SC,
invoking his right against double jeopardy and claiming that the private
complainants had no legal personality to question his acquittal. The SC
required the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment on the private
complainants’ legal standing in a criminal case. The OSG gave its conformity to the petition
for certiorari that private complainants filed before the CA. The OSG argued
that the trial court's Joint Orders were void for failure to state clearly the
factual and legal bases of Austria's acquittal.
Whether the private complainants had
the legal personality to question the acquittal of the accused.
NO.
"In any criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People
or State before the Supreme Court (SC) and the CA. This is explicitly provided
under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the 1987 Administrative
Code of the Philippines.
"The rationale behind this rule is that in a
criminal case, the state is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal
action and not the private complainant. The interest of the private offended
party is restricted only to the civil liability of the accused. In the
prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a
witness for the prosecution such that when a criminal case is dismissed by the
trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal on the criminal aspect may
be undertaken only by the State through the OSG. The private offended party may not take such
appeal, but may only do so as to the civil aspect of the case. Differently
stated, the private offended party may file an appeal without the intervention
of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned. Also, the private complainant may file a special civil action for
certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of
preserving his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case.
While the private complainants filed the petition
before the CA without the OSG’s prior conformity, they cannot be faulted for
relying on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the
case through a petition for certiorari on the grounds of grave abuse of
discretion and denial of due process. Hence, the Court should not dismiss their
remedy. In any event, the OSG joined the cause of private complainants, and
gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari that the private complainants
filed before the CA.
Whether the RTC’s orders of acquittal valid.
NO.
The CA properly struck down as a nullity the RTC's Joint Orders which simply
copied the allegations of the accused in his motions for reconsideration and
memoranda followed by a conclusion "that the prosecution miserably failed
to overcome the legal presumption of innocence of the accused beyond cavil of
reasonable doubt." They contained
neither an analysis of the evidence nor a reference to any legal basis for the
conclusion. Thus, the Joint Orders are void for failure to meet the standard
set forth in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Whether Austria's right against double jeopardy was
violated.
NO.
The RTC orders, which simply copied the allegations of Austria in his motions
for reconsideration and memoranda were not valid. Section 14, Article VIII of
the Constitution expressly provides that "no decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based. The failure to comply with the constitutional
injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. As the RTC’s acquittal orders were void judgments, they have no
legal effect and thus did not terminate the case. Hence, Austria’s right
against double jeopardy was not violated.
No comments:
Post a Comment