G.R. No. 224567 September 26, 2018
LYDIA CU, Petitioner vs. TRINIDAD VENTURA, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Lydia Cu filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against respondent Trinidad Ventura. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Ventura guilty beyond reasonable doubt, ordering imprisonment, a fine, and payment of the check value of P2,000,000.00 to Cu. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, acquitting Ventura and dismissing the civil liability aspect for lack of preponderance of evidence. Cu filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC decision.
The CA dismissed Cu’s appeal outright. It ruled that in criminal actions elevated to the CA or Supreme Court, the exclusive authority to represent the State is vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). As a private complainant, Cu lacked the legal personality to appeal the acquittal. Cu moved for reconsideration, arguing she was assailing only the civil aspect of the case, but the CA denied her motion. Cu thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, insisting respondent was guilty and liable for civil damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on the procedural ground that she, as a private complainant, cannot represent the State in appealing a criminal case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The ruling is grounded on established procedural doctrine and the nature of appeals in criminal cases. First, the Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 must raise only questions of law, not questions of fact. Here, Cu’s first issue—asking the Court to re-examine the evidence to find Ventura guilty—is clearly a question of fact, as it calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence and the correctness of the RTC’s factual appreciation. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; factual findings of lower courts are final and binding when supported by evidence.
Second, and more fundamentally, the Court upheld the CA’s procedural dismissal. In criminal cases, an appeal from a judgment of acquittal elevates the entire case, including both its criminal and civil aspects. The State is the real party-in-interest in the criminal aspect. The OSG is the sole representative of the State in appeals before the CA and Supreme Court. A private complainant, like Cu, has no authority to assume this role. While a private complainant may have an interest in the civil liability, any appeal questioning an acquittal inherently implicates the criminal aspect. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for Cu’s lack of legal standing to prosecute the appeal without the OSG. The civil liability, being derivative of the criminal conviction in BP 22 cases, was correctly dismissed by the RTC upon acquittal, and Cu’s separate recourse for civil recovery must be pursued in an independent civil action.