THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238111. December 3, 2018.]
JOSE A. DAZA, petitioner,vs. SPO3 FIEL GENIO AND MEDAN LACANA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 3, 2018, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 238111 — Jose A. Daza, petitioner, vs. SPO3 Fiel Genio and Medan Lacana, respondents.
RESOLUTION
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 16, 2017 Decision and March 15, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals which found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in granting respondents SPO3 Fiel E. Genio and Medan Lacana's petition for bail, was filed by "[p]rivate petitioner Jose A. Daza, through counsel[.]" 1 Jose A. Daza claims to be the brother of the victim, Manuel A. Daza, and that he "held an authority to prosecute the criminal case from the Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of Catarman, Northern Samar on 26 November 2012, which authority was later confirmed in open court before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25." 2 At the same time, he concedes that the "People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Court of Appeals and by the Public Prosecutor in the trial court, is an aggrieved party in the Orders dated 05 May 2015 and 14 October 2015." 3
In Cariño v. De Castro,4 the Supreme Court declared:
In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under Presidential Decree No. 478, among the specific powers and functions of the OSG was to "represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings." This provision has been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.
Although the petition for review before the Court of Appeals was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City Prosecutor, such conformity is insufficient, as the rules and jurisprudence mandate that the same should be filed by the Solicitor General.
While a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate to the interest of the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.
xxx xxx xxx
We are cognizant of our ruling in the cases of Perez v. Hagonoy, Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa, People v. Santiago, and Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, where we held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the People or state in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. At the same time, we acknowledged in those cases that a private offended party, in the interest of substantial justice, and where there appears to be a grave error committed by the judge, or where there is lack of due process, may allow and give due course to the petition filed. However, the special circumstances prevailing in the abovementioned cases are not present in the instant case. In those cases, the petitioners availed of petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In the instant case, the petition was filed under Rule 45. 5 (Citations omitted.)
Plainly, petitioner Jose A. Daza, through his private counsel, lacks legal personality to prosecute this appeal on behalf of the People.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
The Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel for Petitioner filed by Atty. Zharmai C. Garcia of Butuyan & Rayel Law Offices, with a request that Court processes be sent to petitioner at Barangay Matobato, Calbayog City, and the Entry of Appearance of Atty. Steven Mark N. Gayados of Marcoleta Julian Reyes & Velez Law Offices are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the above disquisition.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 11.
2.Id. at 13.
3.Id.
4. 576 Phil. 634 (2008).
5. Id. at 639-641.