Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope this email finds you well. My name is Ricardo Cruz, and I own a small construction supply business here in Quezon City. I am writing to you because I am deeply troubled and confused about a legal situation I’m involved in.

About two years ago, I discovered that a rival company, let’s call them XYZ Corp., seemed to be using falsified credentials and misrepresented financial capacity to secure large government contracts – projects my own company was qualified for and bidding on. Believing this was fraudulent and harmful not just to competitors like me but also to the public, I gathered evidence and filed a formal complaint for estafa and falsification with the City Prosecutor’s Office.

Initially, the prosecutor found probable cause and filed charges against the officers of XYZ Corp. in the Regional Trial Court. Warrants of arrest were even issued. However, one of the officers, Ms. Santos, who hadn’t even been arrested yet, filed several motions asking the judge to review the probable cause finding. To my shock, a new judge eventually granted her motion and dismissed the entire criminal case, stating there wasn’t enough evidence after all.

I felt this was a grave injustice. The evidence seemed clear to me, and their actions directly damaged my business prospects. I immediately filed a notice of appeal with the RTC, wanting to challenge the dismissal and have the criminal charges reinstated. However, the court denied my notice of appeal and even ordered it removed from the records, saying I, as the private complainant, had no ‘legal standing’ or personality to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case without the Solicitor General’s approval. They also mentioned Ms. Santos submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing those motions.

I don’t understand this. I was the one who initiated the complaint and was directly affected. Why can’t I appeal the criminal case’s dismissal? And how could Ms. Santos file motions without being under arrest? It feels like the system is protecting them. What are my rights here, Atty.? Can I still pursue this case somehow?

Thank you for your time and any guidance you can offer.

Sincerely,
Ricardo Cruz

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your frustration and sense of injustice regarding the dismissal of the criminal case you initiated against XYZ Corp. and the subsequent denial of your attempt to appeal. It’s confusing when legal procedures seem to conflict with what feels morally right, especially when you believe you’ve been wronged.

The core issue here involves understanding the distinct roles in a criminal prosecution in the Philippines. Essentially, a criminal offense is considered an act against the State, and therefore, the State, represented by the public prosecutor at the trial level and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on appeal, has the primary authority and legal standing to prosecute the criminal aspect of the case. While the private complainant has a crucial role, their ability to act independently, particularly in appealing the dismissal of the criminal case itself, is limited. Regarding the accused filing motions, the rules allow for this as it’s seen as voluntary submission to the court’s authority.

Navigating Your Role: Private Complainant vs. State Prosecution in Criminal Cases

In the Philippine legal system, a fundamental principle governs who can initiate and pursue legal actions. This is the concept of the real party in interest. While it might seem counterintuitive, in criminal cases, the primary aggrieved party is considered to be the State, representing the People of the Philippines, because a crime disrupts public order and breaches the law of the land. You, as the person who reported the crime and may have suffered damages, are the private complainant or offended party.

The prosecution of criminal cases reflects this principle. The Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly state who controls the prosecution:

All criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. (REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 5)

This means that from the moment a criminal information is filed in court, the public prosecutor takes charge. While you, as the private complainant, and your lawyer can actively participate, the ultimate control rests with the prosecutor. This control extends to decisions about how the case is presented, what motions to file, and crucially, whether to appeal an adverse decision like a dismissal.

When a criminal case reaches the appellate courts (the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court), the representation of the People shifts. The law designates a specific office for this role:

The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers… It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings… (Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code)

Therefore, the reason your notice of appeal was denied for lack of legal standing is rooted in these established rules. You were attempting to appeal the criminal aspect of the case – seeking the reinstatement of the charges and the continuation of the prosecution. This right belongs exclusively to the State, represented by the OSG at the appellate level. Generally, a private complainant does not have the independent legal personality or standing to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case itself, unless specific exceptions apply, such as proving a grave denial of due process or if the appeal solely concerns the civil liability arising from the crime.

Your interest, while significant, is primarily viewed in relation to the potential civil damages you might have suffered as a result of the alleged crime. While the criminal and civil actions can be pursued jointly, the right to prosecute the crime itself rests with the State. This principle is consistently upheld:

The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.

Regarding Ms. Santos filing motions before her arrest, this is related to the concept of jurisdiction over the person. While arrest is one way for a court to acquire jurisdiction, it’s not the only way. An accused person can voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The act of filing pleadings that seek affirmative relief from the court, such as motions to determine probable cause or motions to dismiss, is generally considered a voluntary submission.

As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdiction of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Thus, when Ms. Santos filed those motions, she effectively placed herself under the authority of the court for the purpose of resolving those motions, even without being physically detained. Custody under the law isn’t always required for the court to act on certain reliefs sought by the accused, except typically for applications like bail.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Focus on Civil Liability: While appealing the dismissal of the criminal case itself is generally reserved for the OSG, you retain the right to pursue the civil aspect (damages) arising from the alleged fraud. Consult a lawyer about filing a separate civil case or recovering damages if the prosecutor reserved that right.
• Coordinate with the Prosecutor/OSG: If you strongly believe the dismissal was erroneous, you can coordinate with the public prosecutor and present your arguments. They might be persuaded to file a motion for reconsideration or elevate the matter to the OSG to evaluate the possibility of a state-led appeal.
• Respect the Court’s Finding on Probable Cause: Understand that the judge’s determination of probable cause (or lack thereof) is a judicial function based on their assessment of the evidence presented. While frustrating, this finding led to the dismissal.
• Document Your Damages: Carefully document all financial losses or damages your business suffered due to XYZ Corp.’s alleged actions. This will be crucial for any civil claim.
• Understand Voluntary Submission: Recognize that the court correctly acquired jurisdiction over Ms. Santos when she filed motions seeking relief, even without prior arrest. This is standard legal procedure.
• Avoid Independent Criminal Appeals: Refrain from filing further appeals concerning the criminal aspect yourself, as this will likely be denied again for lack of legal standing. Channel your efforts through the prosecutor or towards civil remedies.
• Seek Specific Legal Counsel: Engage a lawyer to thoroughly review the case details, the evidence, the dismissal order, and advise you on the most viable next steps, particularly regarding potential civil claims against XYZ Corp.

It’s disheartening when legal processes don’t align with our expectations of justice, Ricardo. However, understanding the specific rules about legal standing and the distinct roles in criminal prosecution is key to navigating the system effectively. Your focus now might need to shift towards exploring civil remedies or coordinating with the state’s representatives if you believe the criminal dismissal warrants review by the OSG.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.