G.R. No. 193681 August 6, 2014 website www.pepcoalition.

com on August 25,2005 an article

entitled "Back to the Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Chose the War Dance with Coalition." As alleged in the
complaint, such publication was highly defamatory and libelous
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and HELEN Y. DEE, against the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group of
Private Complainants-Petitioners, Companies, particularly petitioners Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners).7
PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA
SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City8 found probable
DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA BONIFACIO, ELVIRA cause to indict 16 trustees, officers and/or members of PEPCI,
CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA namely, respondents Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma.
GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO Annabella Relova Santos, John Joseph Gutierrez, Jocelyn
LORAYES, PETER SUCHIANCO, and TRENNIE MONSOD, Upano (Upano), Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja, Wonina Bonifacio
Respondents. (Bonifacio), Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste
(Ortuoste), Victoria Gomez Jacinto, Juvencio Pereche, Jr.
RESOLUTION (Pereche, Jr.), Ricardo Lorayes, Peter Suchianco, and Trennie
Monsod (respondents) for 13 counts of libel.9
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The criminal information in I.S. No. 1-11-11995 was soon after
Assailed in this. petition for review on certiorari1 is the raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139
Resolution2 dated September 15, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (RTC) and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-875. Upon
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31549 which granted respondents’ motion of respondents Bonifacio, Upano, Ortuoste, and Pereche,
motion for reconsideration of the Resolution3 dated January 21, Jr., the RTC, in an Order dated May 23, 2007, quashed the
2009, thereby dismissing petitioners’ notice of appeal4 from the criminal information for libel and dismissed the case for lack of
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 06-8755 for libel on the ground jurisdiction,10 holding that the criminal information failed to
that petitioners had no personality to appear for the State and allege where the article was printed and first published or where
appeal the criminal aspect of a case because the Office of the the offended parties reside.11 It subsequently denied
Solicitor General (OSG) did not give its conformity to the same. petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated
Assailed further is the Resolution6 dated September 2, 2010 February 11, 2008.12
denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the September
15, 2009 Resolution of the CA for lack of merit. On February 29, 2008, the People of the Philippines (People),
through the private prosecutors, and with the conformity of
The Facts public prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr., filed a Notice of
Appeal.13 Soon after, petitioners filed the Brief for the Private
On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez, President of the Complainants-Appellants14 as directed by the CA. The OSG, for
Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency – the advertising arm its part, however, sought suspension of the period to file the
of the Yuchengco Group of Companies, to which Malayan required brief pending information and endorsement from the
Insurance Company, Inc. is a corporate member – filed a Department of Justice (DOJ) on whether it is the People or the
Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the Office of the City private complainant that should file the same.15 Subsequently,
Prosecutor of Makati City against a group called the Parents the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion16 dated October 20,
Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting on the 2008 stating that it had received an advisory from the DOJ that
the latter had no information about the case and, thus, prayed The sole issue in this case is whether or not petitioners, being
that it be excused from filing the appellant’s brief. mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial
court dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s
Meanwhile, respondents Bonifacio, Upano, Ortuoste, and conformity. The Court’s Ruling
Pereche, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal,17 citing as
grounds for dismissal the fact that the Brief for the Private The petition lacks merit.
Complainants-Appellants filed by petitioners did not carry the
conforme of the OSG and that ordinary appeal was not the The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by
appropriate remedy. In a Resolution18 dated January 21, 2009 petitioners against the May 23, 2007 Order of the RTC because
the CA denied the said motion and directed respondents to file they, being mere private complainants, lacked the legal
their appellee’s brief.19 personality to appeal the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 06-875
(resulting from the quashal of the information therein on the
Instead of filing the required appellee’s brief, respondents moved ground of lack of jurisdiction).
for the reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, prompting
petitioners and the OSG to file their respective comments.20 In To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the
their Comment/ Opposition21 to the said motion for State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA
reconsideration, petitioners insisted that the trial court’s order is vested solely in the OSG26 which is the law office of the
of dismissal was a final order from which an appeal was Government whose specific powers and functions include that
available; that the notice of appeal was signed by the public of representing the Republic and/or the people before any court
prosecutor and therefore valid; and that jurisprudence shows in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends
that the conformity of the OSG is not required when grave errors of justice may require.27 Explicitly, Section 35(1),Chapter 12,
are committed by the trial court or where there is lack of due Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code28 provides
process. that:

In its Comment,22 the OSG concurred in the propriety of the SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the
remedy of an appeal against the assailed order, but nonetheless, Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
asserted that the appeal, without its conformity, must fail Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials
because under the law it is only the OSG that should represent and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
the People in criminal cases. The CA Ruling requiring the services of lawyers. x x x. It shall have the following
specific powers and functions:
In a Resolution dated September 15, 2009, the CA dismissed the
appeal on the ground that the OSG had not given its conformity (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the
to the said appeal.23 Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the
Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration24 but the same Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and
was denied by the CA in a Resolution25 dated September special proceedings in which the Government or any officer
2,2010, hence, this petition. thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphases supplied)

The Issue Before the Court Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a
criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the
accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the
criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor but only with respect to the civil aspect of the libel case following
is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who
are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated
therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal September 15, 2009 and September 2, 2010 of the Court of
case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 31549 dismissing petitioners' appeal
criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.30 In from the dismissal of the criminal case for libel are hereby
view of the corollary principle that every action must be AFFIRMED.
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the SO ORDERED.
suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit,31 an appeal
of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the
OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the
offended party may, however, file an appeal without the
intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of
the accused is concerned.32 He may also file a special civil
action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG,
but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect
of the case.33

Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely
to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case.1âwphi1
Rather, by seeking the reversal of the RTC’s quashal of the
information in Criminal Case No. 06-875 and thereby seeking
that the said court be directed to set the case for arraignment
and to proceed with trial,34 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.

Petitioners have no personality or legal stand ing to interpose an

appeal in a criminal proceeding. Since the OSG had expressly
withheld its conformity and endorsement in the instant case, the
CA, therefore, correctly dismissed the appeal. It must, however,
be clarified. that the aforesaid dismissal is without prejudice to
their filing of the appropriate action to preserve their interests