GR 199527; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199527 , January 10, 2018
People of the Philippines, thru Private Complainant Brian Victor Britchford, Petitioner vs. Salvador Alapan, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Salvador Alapan was convicted by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on eight counts of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22). The MTC imposed a fine totaling ₱240,000.00, along with civil indemnity, but did not impose a penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. After the judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied. Petitioner Brian Victor Britchford, the private complainant, filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty, which the MTC denied, reasoning that subsidiary imprisonment was not provided for in the judgment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed petitioner’s appeal, and the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently dismissed the petition for review, citing that it was filed without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the private complainant has the legal standing to appeal the criminal aspect of the case and seek the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for the accused’s failure to pay the fine.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that the petitioner, as a private complainant, lacks the legal personality to question the penalty imposed in the criminal case. The authority to represent the People of the Philippines in all criminal proceedings before appellate courts is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) under Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code. The interest of a private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising from the crime. Any appeal concerning the criminal liability, including the imposition of penalties like subsidiary imprisonment, is a matter of public interest that only the State, through the OSG, can pursue.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the MTC’s decision, which had long attained finality, could no longer be altered. The principle of immutability of final judgments bars any modification, and none of the recognized exceptions (such as correction of clerical errors or void judgments) applied. Since the judgment did not expressly impose subsidiary imprisonment, it could not be supplied by a subsequent motion. Therefore, the petitioner’s recourse was properly dismissed for lack of legal standing and due to the finality of the conviction.