Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 376 views

    Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen Y. Dee vs. Philip Piccio, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    1) Malayan Insurance Company and Helen Y. Dee filed a libel complaint against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for posting a defamatory article online. The city prosecutor found probable cause but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 2) Petitioners appealed the dismissal without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of OSG conformity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private complainants cannot appeal a criminal case dismissal without OSG conformity, as the authority to represent the state in criminal appeals belongs solely to the OSG. The petitioners were improperly attempting to interfere in the criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen Y. Dee vs. Philip Piccio, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    376 views1 page
    1) Malayan Insurance Company and Helen Y. Dee filed a libel complaint against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for posting a defamatory article online. The city prosecutor found probable cause but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 2) Petitioners appealed the dismissal without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of OSG conformity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private complainants cannot appeal a criminal case dismissal without OSG conformity, as the authority to represent the state in criminal appeals belongs solely to the OSG. The petitioners were improperly attempting to interfere in the criminal prosecution.

    Original Description:

    Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen y. Dee vs. Philip Piccio, Et Al. Digest

    Original Title

    Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen y. Dee vs. Philip Piccio, Et Al.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Malayan Insurance Company and Helen Y. Dee filed a libel complaint against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for posting a defamatory article online. The city prosecutor found probable cause but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 2) Petitioners appealed the dismissal without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of OSG conformity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private complainants cannot appeal a criminal case dismissal without OSG conformity, as the authority to represent the state in criminal appeals belongs solely to the OSG. The petitioners were improperly attempting to interfere in the criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    376 views1 page

    Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. and Helen Y. Dee vs. Philip Piccio, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    1) Malayan Insurance Company and Helen Y. Dee filed a libel complaint against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for posting a defamatory article online. The city prosecutor found probable cause but the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 2) Petitioners appealed the dismissal without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of OSG conformity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private complainants cannot appeal a criminal case dismissal without OSG conformity, as the authority to represent the state in criminal appeals belongs solely to the OSG. The petitioners were improperly attempting to interfere in the criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE VS. PHILIP PICCIO, ET AL.

    G.R. No. 193681 August 6, 2014


    Facts: On October 18, 2005, Petitioners filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the Office
    of the City Prosecutor of Makati City against a group called the Parents Enabling Parents
    Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting on the website www.pepcoalition.com on August 25,2005
    an article which was allegedly highly defamatory and libelous against the Yuchengco family
    and the Yuchengco Group of Companies, particularly petitioners Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
    and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners). The Office of City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict
    the Respondents, which was raffled to the RTC- Makati. Thereafter, Respondents filed a
    Motion to Quash, asserting lack of jurisdiction holding that the criminal information failed to
    allege where the article was printed and first published or where the offended parties reside,
    which subsequently denied the Petitioner’s MR. On Feb 29, 2008, the People of the
    Philippines, through the private prosecutors, in conformity of public prosecutor Vermug, Jr.
    filed a Notice of Appeal. Soon after, the Petitioners filed Brief for the Private Complainant-
    Appellants, without conformity of OSG. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, citing
    as grounds for dismissal the fact that the Brief for the Private Complainants-Appellants filed
    by petitioners did not carry the conforme of the OSG and that ordinary appeal was not the
    appropriate remedy.
    Issue: Can Petitioners being mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial
    court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity?
    Ruling: No. It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal
    cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG which is the law office of the
    Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic
    and/or the people before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as
    the ends of justice may require. (Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
    Administrative Code). Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely to
    preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case. Rather, by seeking the reversal of the
    RTC’s quashal of the information and thereby seeking that the said court be directed to set
    the case for arraignment and to proceed with trial, it is sufficiently clear that they sought the
    reinstatement of the criminal prosecution of respondents for libel. Being an obvious attempt
    to meddle into the criminal aspect of the case without the conformity of the OSG, their
    recourse, in view of the above discussed principles, must necessarily fail. To repeat, the right
    to prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is therefore the proper
    party to bring the appeal through the representation of the OSG.

    You might also like