GR 188372; (November, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188372 , November 25, 2015
BEAMS PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MARIANITA CASTILLO AND NIDA QUIRANTE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents Marianita Castillo and Nida Quirante were charged with 16 counts of Estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7. The RTC dismissed the criminal cases in a Decision dated August 30, 2007, ruling that the acts complained of did not constitute estafa. The RTC denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioner, Beams Philippine Export Corporation, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC’s dismissal. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated November 28, 2007, finding it defective because it was not filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and due to defects in the Verification/Certification for Non-Forum Shopping and failure to attach pertinent pleadings. The CA denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 28, 2009.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being defective due to the petitioner’s lack of authority to file the same.
RULING
The Court of Appeals did not err. The petition is denied and the CA Resolutions are affirmed. In a criminal action, the parties are the People of the Philippines and the accused; the offended party is merely a witness for the state. The sole authority to represent the Government in criminal proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court is vested in the Office of the Solicitor General under Presidential Decree No. 478 and the Revised Administrative Code. Only the OSG can appeal the acquittal of an accused or the dismissal of a criminal case. A private complainant may only question such dismissal insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. In this case, a perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner before the CA shows that it sought reconsideration of the criminal aspect of the RTC decision, as it argued that estafa was proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the cases. The petition was bereft of any claim or discussion regarding the civil liability of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner lacked the legal personality or standing to question the RTC decision dismissing the criminal cases.