G.R. No. 126210 . March 9, 2000.
CRISTINA PEREZ, petitioner, vs. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, INC., and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. filed an estafa complaint against several employees of its Hagonoy Money Shop, including petitioner Cristina Perez, its Officer-in-Charge, Cashier, and Teller. An audit revealed anomalous withdrawals and fake deposits totaling P879,727.08. The Acting Provincial Prosecutor found prima facie evidence and filed an information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents against Perez and others in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, who subsequently issued a resolution ordering the prosecutor to cause the dismissal of the information against her due to insufficient evidence. Pursuant to this directive, the prosecutor filed a motion in the RTC to dismiss the case against Perez and to admit an amended information excluding her. The RTC, presided by Judge Masadao, granted the motion. The private respondent bank filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied, ruling that the bank, as the private complainant, lacked the legal personality to question the dismissal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the private offended party (the bank) has the legal personality to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s order dismissing the criminal charges against an accused, based on the Secretary of Justice’s resolution finding insufficient evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Cristina Perez. It held that the private complainant has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the accused. The Court emphasized that a criminal case is a public action prosecuted under the authority of the State, represented by the public prosecutor. The private offended party’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution and to the recovery of civil liability.
The Court clarified that the public prosecutor retains control and direction of the prosecution. The Secretary of Justice’s resolution, directing the withdrawal of the information due to lack of evidence, is binding upon the prosecutor. The trial court, in granting the motion to dismiss and exclude Perez, did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its duty in such a scenario is merely to determine whether the prosecutor’s motion is made in good faith and to ensure it is not patently frivolous. Since the motion was based on the Secretary of Justice’s finding of insufficient evidence, it was valid. Therefore, the private respondent bank could not compel the trial judge to rule on the merits of its motion for reconsideration, as it had no standing to intervene in the prosecution’s discretionary authority to determine whom to charge. The Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed.