Rules on personality in filing appeals in criminal cases (2)

It is settled that an appeal would be the proper remedy against an error of law or fact, or simply, a mistake of judgment, while certiorari is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction. An appeal is also a continuation of the original suit, in which the parties are the original parties in the action.

However, a certiorari is an entirely independent action from the proceedings initiated in the court of origin. The parties to a Petition for Certiorari are the aggrieved party, denominated as the “petitioner,” and the prevailing parties, composed of the public and private respondents.

Only judgments or final orders are proper subjects of an appeal. Since jurisdiction is the issue in certiorari, the petition may be only directed against an interlocutory order or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.

Finally, only the public prosecutor may file an appeal in criminal actions, except that the private complainant may appeal the civil aspect of the case.

On the other hand, owing to his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case, the private complainant may file a petition for certiorari, questioning the decision of the lower court on jurisdictional grounds. In this instance, the action will be prosecuted in the name of the private complainant instead of the People of the Philippines. In expounding on the right of the private complainant to file a petition for certiorari, the Court in People v. Court of Appeals underscored that such right stems from the private complainant’s immense interest in obtaining justice after having been the subject of the offense committed by the accused.

Recall in the instant case that Peter resorted to a petition for certiorari in assailing the 5 June 2012 and 10 August 2012 Orders of the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Since the petition for certiorari is not a continuation of the adultery case in the MCTC but an original and independent action against the jurisdiction of the MCTC in dismissing the case, Peter had the requisite legal personality to file the same even without the concurrence of the public prosecutor.

He even properly filed the petition, as the caption showed his name instead of “People of the Philippines.” Even his filing of a motion for reconsideration with the MCTC was proper, considering that such a motion is an essential requirement in filing a petition for certiorari. As the private complainant, Peter cannot appeal the dismissal of the adultery case he had commenced because only the OPP may do so.

It is needless to state that the dismissal of the adultery case also foreclosed his right to be awarded civil damages. Left without any appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy to protect his interest in the civil aspect of the case, Peter’s filing of a special civil action for certiorari was proper.

However, the Court finds the occasion to refer to the ruling in the relatively recent case of Austria v. AAA, which presented a similar issue involving the legal personality of the private complainant in filing an appeal or a petition for certiorari before the CA and this Court.

While the Court upheld the legal personality of the private complainant in filing a petition for certiorari with the CA, the Court nonetheless held that a private complainant is not vested with the blanket authority to question judgments or orders of trial courts without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. (To be continued)