ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 169711 : February 8, 2010 HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and JOHNNY CO y YU, Respondents. D E C I S I O N ABAD, J.: This case is about the legal standing of the offended parties in a criminal case to seek, in their personal capacities and without the Solicitor General's intervention, reversal of the trial court's order granting bail to the accused on the ground of absence of strong evidence of guilt. The Facts and the Case On January 7, 1992 a number of assailants attacked the household of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos while all were asleep, killing Sarah and her uncle Erasmo Palma (Erasmo). Another uncle, Victor Palma (Victor), and a friend, Benigno Oquendo (Oquendo), survived the attack. The theory of the police was that a land transaction gone sour between Sarah's live-in partner, David So (David), and respondent Johnny Co (Co) motivated the assault. Four months after the incident, the police arrested Cresencio Aman (Aman) and Romeo Martin (Martin) who executed confessions, allegedly admitting their part in the attack. They pointed to two others who helped them, namely, Artemio "Pong" Bergonia and Danilo Say, and to respondent Co who allegedly masterminded the whole thing. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 51, tried the case against Aman and Martin in Criminal Cases 92-104918-21. The three others remained at large. After trial, the RTC acquitted them both. After 10 years or on September 5, 2002 respondent Co surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution charged him with two counts of murder for the deaths of Sarah1cralaw and Erasmo2cralaw and two counts of frustrated murder committed against Oquendo3cralaw and Victor.4cralaw Upon arraignment, Co pleaded not guilty to the charges. On September 25, 2002 respondent Co filed a petition for admission to bail.5cralaw After hearing or on April 14, 2004, the RTC6cralaw granted bail on the ground that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. The RTC summarized the prosecution's evidence as follows:
The RTC had a low estimate, however, of the above evidence. First, the extrajudicial confessions of Aman and Martin, apart from having been irregularly executed, merely proved their participation in the killing. Neither, however, claimed conspiracy with respondent Co. Further, the prosecution did not present Aman or Martin during the bail hearing, reportedly because Aman was already dead and Martin could not be located. To admit their sworn statements in evidence would deprive Co of his constitutional right to cross-examine them. Second, David's narrations were, to the RTC, contradictory, uncorroborated, and self-serving, thus lacking in evidentiary weight. Third, police officer Vasquez's story was likewise uncorroborated. Besides, while flight is often indicative of guilt, it requires a clear showing of the identity of the offender and his evasion of arrest. Here, said the RTC, the prosecution failed to establish Co's identity as the assailant and his reason for fleeing from the police. Fourth, the prosecution failed to prove that the offer of settlement came from Co. Petitioner heirs of Sarah moved for reconsideration7cralaw but the RTC, now presided over by another judge,8cralaw denied the same in its Order of May 18, 2005.9cralaw This prompted the victim's heirs to file a special civil action of certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction10cralaw before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 90028. The CA dismissed the petition,11cralaw however, for having been filed without involving the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in violation of jurisprudence12cralaw and the law, specifically, Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code which states that: Sec. 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, proceedings, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: x x x x (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, 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. Petitioner heirs of Sarah moved for reconsideration13cralaw but the CA denied it for lack of merit in its Resolution of September 16, 2005,14cralaw hence, the heirs recourse to this Court. The Issue The case raises one issue: whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the special civil action of certiorari , which questioned the RTC's grant of bail to respondent Co, for having been filed in the name of the offended parties and without the OSG's intervention. The Court's Ruling Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.15cralaw The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant,16cralaw is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.17cralaw The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits.18cralaw Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him. But, when the trial court acquits the accused19cralaw or dismisses the case20cralaw on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability.21cralaw The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged the state with his crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the parties to the action are the People of the Philippines and the accused.22cralaw The offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state.23cralaw Also in this wise, only the state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG,24cralaw has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court.25cralaw As a general rule, the mandate or authority to represent the state lies only in the OSG. Thus It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the term "shall" x x x. x x x x The Court is firmly convinced that considering the spirit and the letter of the law, there can be no other logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Administrative Code than that it is, indeed, mandatory upon the OSG to "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.26cralaw For the above reason, actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, are, as a rule,27cralaw summarily dismissed.28cralaw Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,29cralaw this Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. But in that case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice."30cralaw It is not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP 90028 dated June 29, 2005 and its Resolution dated September 16, 2005. SO ORDERED. ROBERTO A. ABAD WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
JOSE P. PEREZ A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Endnotes:
|
|