By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Can a private complainant appeal a dismissed criminal case?
A perjury complaint was filed by Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. against Kathrina L. Sebastian. Although prosecutors initially found probable cause, the Secretary of Justice later ordered the withdrawal of the criminal information, and the trial court dismissed the case. When the private complainant asked a higher court to review the dismissal without the approval of the public prosecutor or the Office of the Solicitor General, the case raised this question: Can a private complainant appeal a dismissed criminal case?
The general rule is that the private complainant may not, by himself, appeal or file a petition for certiorari questioning the dismissal of the criminal case. The criminal action is prosecuted in the name of the People, and the authority to decide whether the criminal aspect should proceed belongs to the State. Thus, when the appeal concerns the right to prosecute, the private complainant must act with the conformity of the State, ordinarily through the public prosecutor and, in appellate proceedings, through the Office of the Solicitor General.
The decision, however, recognizes that the rule is not absolute. A private complainant may pursue a remedy without the State’s conformity when the issue concerns only the civil aspect of the case, such as the complainant’s claim for restitution, damages, or other pecuniary relief. He may also question an order when the challenged ruling directly affects his personal or property rights, and the relief sought does not require the reinstatement of the criminal action or a review of matters that belong to the prosecution.
By contrast, the private complainant cannot rely on those exceptions when the petition would require the court to pass upon issues that “exclusively pertain to the State.” These include probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction, the elements of the offense, prescription, admissibility of evidence, the identity of the perpetrator, and other questions requiring a review of the substantive merits of the criminal proceedings. If the remedy sought would revive the prosecution or meddle with the prosecution of the offense, the conformity of the State through the OSG is indispensable.
The distinction is important because it separates private injury from public prosecution. The private complainant may protect a civil interest because that interest is his own. But the criminal liability of the accused is a matter the State controls through its prosecutorial officers. In practical terms, a pleading filed by a private complainant after dismissal must show whether it seeks only civil relief or whether it seeks, in substance, to continue the criminal case.
Thus, the answer to the title’s question is qualified. A private complainant may appeal alone only to vindicate a separate civil or personal interest that does not intrude into the State’s right to prosecute. But when the appeal challenges the criminal aspect of the dismissal, seeks to revive the case, or asks the court to review the merits of the charge, the private complainant must proceed with the State’s conformity through the OSG. In this way, Philippine Investment Two preserves prosecutorial accountability, protects the accused from unauthorized attempts to restart a criminal case, and reminds litigants that criminal prosecution is not private vengeance by another name. (Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Sebastian, G.R. Nos. 238729-30, April 8, 2026 [Per J. Kho, Jr., En Banc])