G.R. No. 169711; February 8, 2010
HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOHNNY CO y YU, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 7, 1992, assailants attacked the household of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos, killing her and her uncle Erasmo Palma, and injuring Victor Palma and Benigno Oquendo. The police theory pointed to a soured land transaction between Sarah’s live-in partner, David So, and respondent Johnny Co as the motive. In 1992, Cresencio Aman and Romeo Martin were arrested, executed confessions implicating themselves and others, and identified Co as the alleged mastermind. They were tried and acquitted. After ten years, on September 5, 2002, Co surrendered and was charged with two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder. He pleaded not guilty. On September 25, 2002, Co filed a petition for bail. After a hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted bail on April 14, 2004, finding that the evidence of guilt was not strong. The RTC discounted the prosecution’s evidence, which consisted of: (1) the extrajudicial confessions of Aman and Martin (who were not presented at the bail hearing), (2) the testimony of David So, and (3) the testimony of Police Officer Leopoldo Vasquez regarding Co’s flight and offer to settle. The RTC found the confessions inadmissible for depriving Co of his right to cross-examine, deemed David So’s testimony contradictory and self-serving, and found Vasquez’s story uncorroborated. The petitioner heirs of Sarah moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition because it was filed by the offended parties in their personal capacities without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), violating jurisprudence and Section 35 of the Administrative Code. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action of certiorari, which questioned the RTC’s grant of bail to respondent Co, for having been filed in the name of the offended parties and without the OSG’s intervention.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution. The Court ruled that a criminal case has two aspects: civil and criminal. The civil aspect, where the offended party is the plaintiff, is deemed instituted with the criminal action. However, the purpose of the criminal action is to determine the penal liability of the accused to the state. In this sense, the parties are the People of the Philippines and the accused, with the offended party acting merely as a witness for the state. Only the state, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), has the sole right and authority to institute appellate proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court in criminal matters. The grant or denial of bail is an aspect of the criminal action concerning the accused’s penal liability and has no direct impact on civil liability. The general rule is that actions involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, must be dismissed. The Court distinguished the case from Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, where it allowed an offended party to challenge a bail grant because the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion by granting bail without any hearing. Here, the RTC conducted a hearing and evaluated the evidence before concluding that the evidence of guilt was not strong. Therefore, the petitioners, as offended parties, lacked the legal standing to file the certiorari petition without the OSG’s intervention.