PASDA, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 264237, DECEMBER 6, 2023: RESTATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT CANNOT QUESTION RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
Pasda, Inc. charged its former President and current Director respondent Emmanuel Pascual of three (3) counts of Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City for issuing Checks in the amount of Php1,065,000.00, Php9,500,000.00 and Php2,870,621,08 under his names and getting the proceeds thereof sometime between January and February 2016.
The prosecution witnesses testified that Emmanuel had access to confidential records and was designated as the signatory of checks to pay the corporate expenditures. However, Emmanuel was replaced because of various irregularities during his term. In 2016, the audit investigation showed that Emmanuel issued three checks without authority from PASDA’s Board of Directors. On the other hand, Emmanuel denied the accusations and claimed that PASDA authorized him to sign checks that were all covered by their corresponding vouchers. Specifically, the assailed transactions were advances of Emmanuel which he later returned through a manager’s check.
Meantime, Emmanuel was granted bail pending trial. In a Decision dated October 29, 2020, Emmanuel was convicted and was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua for the first two (2) counts and Indeterminate Sentence of Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as minimum to Twenty (20) Years of Reclusion Temporal. Emmanuel appealed before the Court of Appeals. Emmanuel filed a Petition for bail pending appeal which the Court of Appeals granted paving way for his provisional release. In a Decision dated September 19, 2022, the Court of Appeals acquitted Emmanuel.
Pasda, Inc. filed a Petition for Certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in granting bail and subsequently acquitting Emmanuel of the criminal charges. The Supreme Court required the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and Emmanuel to comment on the Petition. Both the OSG and Emmanuel sought the dismissal of the case for lack of legal standing to question the criminal aspect of the case. Specifically, OSG argued that Pasda, Inc. never requested its conformity or consulted it before filing the Petition.
Citing the case of Austria vs. AAA, G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the said case harmonized the case law and formulated guidelines on the private offended party’s legal personality to question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings. The Court surveyed the divergent jurisprudence and instances where the private complainant was allowed to file an appeal or a petition for certiorari without the participation of the OSG questioning the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case and interlocutory orders rendered in the criminal proceedings. These various reasons like denial of due process, grave abuse of discretion, and interest of substantial justice. In Austria, the Court categorically ruled that the “divergent rulings do not grant the private complainant a blanket authority to question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings without the OSG’s intervention.”
The Court restated the following Guidelines laid down in Austria, to wit:
“(1) The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in the denial or dismissal of the remedy. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant’s appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute (i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction, elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, identity of the perpetrator of the crime, modification of penalty. and other questions that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal proceedings. or the nullification/reversal of the entire ruling, or cause the reinstatement of the criminal action or meddle with the prosecution of the offense. among other things). The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the private complainant’s relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
(2) The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the
case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG’s conformity. The private complainant must request the OSG’s conformity within the rcglementary period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. The private complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG’s conformity as proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period. Otherwise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
(3) The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non–extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private complainant’s petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.
(4) These guidelines shall be prospective in application.”
Applying the Guidelines in the instant case, the Supreme Court held that Pasda, Inc.’s Petition for Certiorari was filed on November 28, 2022, or after the ruling in Austria was rendered on June 28, 2022. Under the Guidelines, Pasda, Inc. has the legal standing to assail the civil liability of the accused but not the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute unless with the OSG’s conformity. Notably, Pasda, Inc. questioned before the Supreme Court the Court of Appeals’ order granting bail and judgment of acquittal. These matters necessarily involved the criminal aspect of the case which only the OSG may bring or defend before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as provide in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35 (1) of the 1987 Administrative Code.
The Court held that the rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State 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 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.