FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253447. July 28, 2021.]
MEDIA PUZZLE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY MELCHOR G. MIRAS, JR., petitioner,vs. DARMO N. CASTILLO, RAOUL L. BUENCUCHILLO, JUDYCEL M. DELOS REYES, PAMELA MAUREEN S. FERNANDO, ATHENA B. GONZALES, CHIA TZU CHERN, MARGIE N. FORTIN, JOEL B. MENDOZA, AND CONCHITA F. NICHOLAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253447 — Media Puzzle, Inc., as represented by Melchor G. Miras, Jr. v. Darmo N. Castillo, Raoul L. Buencuchillo, Judycel M. Delos Reyes, Pamela Maureen S. Fernando, Athena B. Gonzales, Chia Tzu Chern, Margie N. Fortin, Joel B. Mendoza, and Conchita F. Nicholas.
We deny the petition.
Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code ordains:
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. x x x. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
xxx xxx xxx 1 (Emphases supplied)
Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by a court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the private complainants who are mere witnesses. For this reason, the People is deemed to be the real party in interest in a criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Appeals or in this Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. 2
As elucidated in People v. Piccio, 3 the rule is applicable when the courts dismiss criminal cases or quash informations for lack of probable cause.
In Piccio, 4 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City found probable cause to charge respondents with libel for posting a highly defamatory article against the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group of Companies. Upon motion of the respondents, the Regional Trial Court-Branch 139 of Makati City quashed the criminal information for libel and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on ground that the OSG had not given its conformity thereto. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dispositions.
Similarly, the present petition does not bear the conformity of the OSG. On the contrary, it appears to have been filed by petitioner Media Puzzle, Inc., private complainant itself in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-06859-CR for qualified theft.
Without the conformity of the OSG, the aggrieved party may only appeal the civil aspect of a criminal proceeding. But here, the arguments raised and relief sought by petitioner (i.e., the reinstatement of the criminal charge of qualified theft against respondents) extends to the criminal aspect of the case. As such, the conformity of the OSG becomes indispensable. In accordance with Piccio, 5 therefore, the present petition must be denied.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 20, 2019, and Resolution dated September 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161050 are AFFIRMED.
Let the petitioner or petitioner's authorized representative be INFORMED to personally claim the refund from the Court's Cash Disbursement and Collection Division, the excess payment of Deposit for Sheriff's Fee and SAJ in the total amount of P1,300.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Executive Order No. 292 [Book IV/Title III/Chapter 12-Office of the Solicitor General], approved on July 25, 1987.
2.People v. Piccio, 740 Phil. 616, 622-623 (2014).
3.Id.
4. See id. at 619.
5. See id. at 623.