GR 264237; (December, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 264237 , December 06, 2023
PASDA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND EMMANUEL D. PASCUAL, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
PASDA, Inc. filed three counts of qualified theft against its former president, Emmanuel D. Pascual, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The criminal informations alleged that in 2015 and 2016, Pascual, with grave abuse of confidence, issued and encashed three company checks for a total of over Thirteen Million Pesos (PHP 13,435,621.08) without the knowledge and consent of PASDA. Pascual pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC convicted Pascual and sentenced him to penalties including reclusion perpetua for two counts.
Pascual appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA) and filed an application for bail pending appeal. The CA granted his provisional release. Subsequently, in its decision on the merits, the CA acquitted Pascual based on reasonable doubt. The appellate court found that a Board Resolution dated August 13, 2007, duly authorized Pascual to sign checks for the corporation at the time of the transactions. It ruled the prosecution failed to prove the elements of qualified theft, particularly the lack of consent and intent to gain. Aggrieved, PASDA filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing both the CA’s grant of bail pending appeal and its judgment of acquittal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, PASDA, Inc., as the private offended party, has the legal standing to assail via certiorari the Court of Appeals’ resolution granting bail pending appeal and its decision acquitting the accused.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CA’s acquittal. The Court held that a private complainant, like PASDA, lacks the legal personality to question judgments in criminal cases concerning their criminal aspect. The interest of an offended party is limited to the civil liability arising from the crime. Once an accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt, as in this case, no civil liability ex delicto arises. Any separate civil action must proceed independently.
The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy for a private complainant to challenge an acquittal. Such a petition can only be filed by the aggrieved party, which in criminal cases is the People of the Philippines, represented by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General. PASDA, being a private entity, is not the real party-in-interest to assail the criminal aspect of the judgment. Furthermore, the acquittal has rendered the issue on the grant of bail moot and academic. Finally, the Court underscored that Pascual’s acquittal by the CA is final and immediately executory. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy bars any further attempt to appeal or nullify the judgment of acquittal, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not present here.