The Supreme Court has ruled that a private complainant has no legal standing to appeal or file a petition for certiorari challenging the dismissal or acquittal of an accused in the criminal aspect of a case without the conformity of the state.

In a 28-page decision dated 6 April 2026 and penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the Supreme Court en banc affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling dismissing a perjury complaint against Kathrina Sebastian because the appeal lacked the conformity of the public prosecutors and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The case stemmed from a perjury complaint filed by Philippine Investment Two (PI Two), a global affiliate of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., against Sebastian, an associate director of Standard Chartered Bank.

PI Two alleged that Sebastian made false statements under oath in a corporate rehabilitation proceeding when she claimed the company had failed to provide "adequate guarantees or security" for its P819 million loan after Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy.

Sebastian maintained that she acted in good faith, arguing that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court had issued a stay order that rendered the guarantees and pledge agreements legally frozen and unenforceable at the time.

Although prosecutors initially found probable cause, the Secretary of Justice later reversed the finding and ordered the withdrawal of the criminal information.

After conducting its own review of the records, the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 66 dismissed the case.

PI Two appealed the dismissal to the Regional Trial Court without obtaining the conformity of the handling public prosecutor or the OSG.

The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC and reinstated the dismissal, ruling that PI Two lacked legal standing to pursue the appeal. The company then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

In affirming the appellate court's ruling, the Supreme Court said PI Two had no legal standing to seek the reinstatement of the dismissed criminal case.

The high court emphasized that criminal actions are instituted in the name of the State to determine the criminal liability of the accused and to protect public order, making the State the real party in interest in criminal prosecutions.

It added that any private complainant serves only as a witness for the prosecution, while the State, represented by public prosecutors or the OSG, controls the criminal aspect of the case.

The court ruled that because PI Two sought to revive the dismissed criminal prosecution without the required conformity of the city prosecutor or the OSG, its appeal was unauthorized and invalid.

"The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the state is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action and not the private complainant. The interest of the private offended party is restricted only to the civil liability of the accused," the Supreme Court said.

It added: "In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution such that when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the OSG."