Austria v. AAA and BBB
G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022


Facts:

Austria, a pubic school teacher, was convicted of 5 counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-year-old female students. On his motion for reconsideration, he was acquitted by the new presiding judge who resolved the motion. The private complainants a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Thus, the private complainants filed a special civil action for certiorari to the CA. They alleged that the new presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the Joint Orders of acquittal which merely recited the contents of the accused's motion for reconsideration without stating any factual and legal basis. The CA declared the judgment of acquittal as void and that double jeopardy did not attach.

Austria filed a petition with the SC, invoking his right against double jeopardy and claiming that the private complainants had no legal personality to question his acquittal. The SC required the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment on the private complainants’ legal standing in a criminal case.  The OSG gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari that private complainants filed before the CA. The OSG argued that the trial court's Joint Orders were void for failure to state clearly the factual and legal bases of Austria's acquittal.


Issues:

1. Whether the private complainants had the legal personality to question the acquittal of the accused.

2.  Whether the RTC’s orders of acquittal valid.

3. Whether Austria's right against double jeopardy was violated.


Held:

1. "In any criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State before the Supreme Court (SC) and the CA. This is explicitly provided under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines.

"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. 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.  The private offended party may not take such appeal, but may only do so as to the civil aspect of the case. Differently stated, the private offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. Also, the private complainant may file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case. 

While the private complainants filed the petition before the CA without the OSG’s prior conformity, they cannot be faulted for relying on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the case through a petition for certiorari on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process. Hence, the Court should not dismiss their remedy. In any event, the OSG joined the cause of private complainants, and gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari that the private complainants filed before the CA. 


2.  The RTC orders, which simply copied the allegations of Austria in his motions for reconsideration and memoranda were not valid. Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly provides that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the basis therefor." The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The CA properly struck down as a nullity the RTC's Joint Orders which simply copied the allegations of JVlamerto in his motions for reconsideration and memoranda followed by a conclusion "that the prosecution miserably failed to overcome the legal presumption of innocence of the accused beyond cavil of reasonable doubt."  They contained neither an analysis of the evidence nor a reference to any legal basis for the conclusion. Thus, the Joint Orders are void for failure to meet the standard set forth in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. 

3. As the RTC’s acquittal orders were void judgments, they have no legal effect and thus did not terminate the case. Hence, Austria’s right against double jeopardy was not violated.