Cariño v. De Castro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carmencita G. Cariño filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against respondent Merlin de Castro. The complaint alleged that respondent issued five checks that were subsequently dishonored. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, Branch 13, dismissed the cases after finding that the checks were issued without valuable consideration, as petitioner was not authorized by the property owners to collect rental payments from respondent. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed the MTC's dismissal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, which affirmed the MTC's decision. The RTC found that petitioner failed to controvert the owners' joint-affidavit stating she was not authorized to collect rentals, thus supporting the conclusion that the checks were issued without legal and valuable consideration. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition because it was filed by the private prosecutor and not by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as mandated by law. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the CA's decision dismissing the petition and its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in not rectifying the alleged errors of law committed by the MTC and RTC. The core issue is whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition for review for being filed by the private prosecutor instead of the OSG. Petitioner contends that the CA's decision is not in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence. The OSG, in its comment, opined that petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for review and that the CA correctly dismissed it.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review filed by the private prosecutor. Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in not rectifying the errors of the MTC and RTC, and whether the lower courts committed grave abuse of discretion. Whether the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution are in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 18, 2006, dismissing the petition, and the Resolution dated December 29, 2006, denying the motion for reconsideration, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for review: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, reiterating the established rule that in criminal proceedings on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Presidential Decree No. 478 and Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly grant this power to the OSG. While the petition was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City Prosecutor, this is insufficient. The OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases. The participation of a private prosecutor is subordinate to the interest of the People and cannot adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General, as this would grant the private prosecutor direction and control over the criminal proceedings, contrary to law. In this case, the OSG opined that the petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for review, and the CA correctly dismissed it. Therefore, the Assistant City Prosecutor or the private prosecutor could not take a contrary view. On the alleged errors of the lower courts and the accord with law and jurisprudence: The Court found no merit in petitioner's claims. While acknowledging rulings in cases like Perez v. Hagonoy where a private offended party might be allowed to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the interest of substantial justice and where grave error or lack of due process is apparent, the Court distinguished the present case. Firstly, the petition was filed under Rule 45, not Rule 65. Secondly, both the MTC and RTC found that the checks were issued without valuable consideration and for a non-existing account, as petitioner was not authorized to collect rentals. These findings were undisputed and contradicted petitioner's claim of being the aggrieved party. Furthermore, petitioner could not validly claim denial of due process, as she availed of every opportunity to present her case. Thus, the lower courts did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints. The Court found no merit in petitioner's claims that the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution are not in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence, as the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of the petition for review filed by the private prosecutor and did not err in not rectifying the errors of the MTC and RTC.
Main Doctrine
In criminal proceedings on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. A private prosecutor's participation, even with the conformity of the prosecutor, is insufficient if not filed by the Solicitor General, and such petition may be dismissed on that ground alone, unless special circumstances warranting a departure from this rule, such as the availability of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and a showing of grave error or lack of due process, are present.