G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and HELEN Y. DEE, Private Complainants-Petitioners, vs. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER SUCHIANCO, and TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.

FACTS

A Complaint-Affidavit for libel was filed against respondents (trustees, officers, and/or members of PEPCI) for posting a defamatory article on a website. The Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause, and an information was filed and raffled to the RTC of Makati, Branch 139 (Criminal Case No. 06-875). The RTC, upon motion of some respondents, quashed the information and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the information failed to allege where the article was printed and first published or where the offended parties reside. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. The People, through the private prosecutors and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed a Notice of Appeal. Petitioners (private complainants) filed the Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants. The OSG filed a Manifestation stating it had no information about the case and prayed to be excused from filing the appellant’s brief. Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the brief lacked the OSG’s conformity and that ordinary appeal was not the appropriate remedy. The CA initially denied the motion to dismiss but, upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the OSG had not given its conformity. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity.

RULING

No. The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal. The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the CA and the Supreme Court is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as provided by Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court, only the OSG may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People, as the real party in interest. The private complainant or offended party may appeal without the OSG’s intervention only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned, or may file a special civil action for certiorari to preserve interest in the civil aspect. In this case, petitioners sought the reinstatement of the criminal prosecution by appealing the quashal of the information and dismissal of the case, which is an attempt to meddle in the criminal aspect without the OSG’s conformity. Therefore, they lacked the legal personality to appeal. The dismissal is without prejudice to petitioners filing the appropriate action to preserve their interests but only with respect to the civil aspect of the libel case. The petition is DENIED and the CA Resolutions are AFFIRMED.