In criminal cases, it is vital to note that two aspects are prosecuted: criminal and civil. The public prosecutor always handles the criminal aspect. This is because the crime is committed against the state, not the individual victim. Thus, the public prosecutor, being the lawyer of the state, is the one tasked to prosecute.

On the other hand, the private prosecutor is confined merely to handling the civil aspect, the damages suffered by the victim.

There are times when the private prosecutor handles both the criminal and civil aspects. But that is only if it is with the express consent of the public prosecutor. Without it, the private lawyer has no personality.

This delineation gets tricky, especially on appeal. When appealing the criminal aspect of the case, the private prosecution representing the victim can no longer prosecute on its own. Otherwise, the appellate courts will deny the appeal, no matter how meritorious.

Thus, in one case, the complainant, through the private prosecutor, appealed the criminal aspect of the case. The private prosecutor questioned why the lower court allowed the withdrawal of the criminal case filed against the accused.

When the issue was brought up to the Supreme Court, it ruled, “We likewise agree that respondent did not have the legal personality to file the petition and question the trial court Order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information.

It is doctrine that “in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability” and that “the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. Continued the Court in People v. Court of Appeals:

If the trial court dismisses a criminal case or if there is an acquittal, an appeal from that place on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.

Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or the complainant may not take such an appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

As the private offended party, the respondent’s interest is only limited to the petitioner’s civil liability.

Yet, reading his Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, we find no arguments on civil liability. Instead, the respondent prayed that the case be remanded to the trial court to continue proceedings, arguing that cyber libel is not a new crime and is punishable under the Revised laws Penal Code.

In other words, he insisted that the petitioner is criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code for the allegedly defamatory Facebook post she made in 2011. Without the concurrence of the prosecution, the respondent had no legal personality to do this.

The present case is similar to Personal Collection Direct Selling v. Carandang, where the private offended party tried to file a petition for certiorari to question the grant of the motion to withdraw information. The Court immediately recognized the erroneous availment of the remedy. It thus reiterated that while private offended parties have been allowed to bring certiorari petitions to question interlocutory orders, it cannot be allowed for dismissals of cases, including granting motions to withdraw information.

Here, since the order being questioned is the grant of the Motion to Withdraw Information, the respondent, the private offended party, had no legal personality to file a petition for certiorari. Allowing him to file the petition when an appeal clearly exists violates Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and this will enable erroneous availments of certiorari petitions.

All told, respondent had no legal personality to file the petition for certiorari against the grant of the motion to withdraw information.”

See how vital this is. It is important to take good note of these two aspects in criminal cases.  Crossing the demarcation line will result in an appeal in futility.

The quoted portion of the decision is from Jannece Penalosa v. Jose A. Ocampo (GR 230299, 26 April 2023).