The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday said the private complainant in a criminal case could not question the grant of bail and acquittal in favor of the accused.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez on 6 December 2023 and uploaded on 20 May 2024, the SC Second Division affirmed the grant of bail and the subsequent acquittal of one Emmanuel D. Pascual.

Pascual was charged with three counts of qualified theft under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly stealing money from PASDA Inc. by issuing company checks under his name and pocketing the proceeds.

Pascual was a former president of PASDA and, at the time of the alleged incident, a member of its board of directors. He was found guilty by a lower court, prompting him to file a petition for bail in the Court of Appeals (CA).

Pending his appeal, the CA granted the bail plea and ordered his provisional release. This was challenged by PASDA, the private complainant in the case.

Pascual was later acquitted by the CA of the charges, finding that he was duly authorized, as evidenced by a board resolution, to issue and withdraw the checks on behalf of PASDA.

PASDA filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari questioning the CA’s grant of bail and judgment of acquittal. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), however, sought the dismissal of PASDA’s petition for lack of legal standing to question the criminal aspect of the case.

The Supreme Court denied PASDA’s petition, reiterating its ruling in the 2022 case of Austria v. AAA that a private complainant in a criminal case has the legal standing to assail the civil liability of the accused but not the criminal aspect of the case, unless it was made with the OSG’s conformity.

PASDA, in the case, was questioning the CA’s grant of bail pending appeal and its judgment of acquittal. These matters involve the criminal aspect of the case, which only the OSG may bring or defend on behalf of the state as the party affected in a criminal case.

The interest of the private complainant, on the other hand, is restricted only to the civil liability of the accused. The SC said that without the OSG’s conformity, PASDA had no legal standing to question the grant of bail in favor of Pascual or his acquittal.