In the same case of Theresa Avelau Itsuris-Rebuelta v. Peter Rebuelta (G.R. 222105, 13 December 2023), which I wrote about these prior weeks, petitioners Theresa and Mark questioned the personality of Peter, Theresa’s husband, in filing the certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Remember that the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the case in favor of Theresa, wife of Peter and Mark. This prompted the husband to file a petition for certiorari with the next-level court, the RTC. Note that certiorari is vastly different from an appeal.
The appeal is assailing the trial court’s decision, which is contrary to facts and/or law. Certiorari, however, questions the trial court’s jurisdiction, that grave abuse of discretion was committed. The parties in this case focused on Peter’s certiorari, having been brought up without the conformity, at the very least, of the public prosecutor.
In criminal appeals to the higher court, the State is the proper party to file the appeal. Depending on which level the case is filed, the provincial/city prosecutor or the Office of the Solicitor General takes the lead, not the private complainant. Peter, however, asserts that he has the personality to file the certiorari. This issue was raised to the Supreme Court, which finally resolved it in favor of Peter.
“In private crimes, the right to commence an action or refrain therefrom is at the sole power and option of the offended party, who must decide whether to expose in public, the vices, faults, and disgraceful acts within the family. Adultery, as a private crime, may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the husband against the guilty parties. It is the husband who would exercise the option of commencing the action to seek judicial redress for the wrong committed by his wife. Worthy of emphasis here is that in all crimes, whether private or public, the term ‘offended party’ refers to the private complainant to whom the offender will be civilly liable in view of Article 100 of the RPC. xxx xxx xxx”
“Once the offended party decides to proceed with the complaint, the action progresses as any other crime. The State, through the prosecutor, shall take over in prosecuting the case; any changes in the decision of the offended party in pursuing the case shall not affect the State’s resolve to vindicate the transgressions to public peace and order. This is because in criminal cases, the State is the offended party while the interest of the private complainant is limited to the civil liability of the accused. As such, the role of the private complainant is reduced to being a witness for the prosecution.”
“In view of its interest in vindicating the disturbance to public order and peace, it is only the State who has the right to appeal the dismissal of a criminal case or acquittal of the accused. The private complainant may not take the appeal except to protect his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case.
“The instant petitions do not involve the right to institute a complaint, but rather, the authority to prosecute private crimes, specifically, that of assailing the dismissal of the action due to lack of probable cause. Based on the aforementioned rules, the right to initiate a complaint for a private crime is always lodged with the offended party or the private complainant such that the State cannot institute the complaint on its own. However, when the complaint has already been filed with the court, it is the public prosecutor, on behalf of the State, who shall take the lead in pursuing the case.
“Hence, the flaw in the RTC ruling becomes apparent when it muddles up the right to initiate a criminal action involving private crimes with the right to prosecute the same. Peter, as the offended party, has the sole right to initiate a complaint for adultery against the petitioners. He has no authority to prosecute the case, as it is the public prosecutor, on behalf of the State, who possesses the same.”
Despite the confusion, Peter, as the private complainant, has the legal personality to elevate the matter before the RTC.
It is worthy of emphasis here that Peter questioned the twin Orders of the MCTC by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The course of this case would have been different if he merely resorted to an ordinary appeal since it is substantially different from a special civil action for certiorari. (To be continued)
