CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________

G.R. No. 169711. February 8, 2010.*

HEIRS OF SARAH MARIE PALMA BURGOS, petitioners, vs. COURT

OF APPEALS and JOHNNY CO y YU, respondents.

Criminal Law; Two aspects of a criminal case, the civil and the criminal.
A criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The civil aspect
is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly
liable. The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the
accused is the defendant, is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless
the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Same; The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to
avoid multiplicity of suits.The law allows the merger of the criminal and
the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds
in prosecuting the offense, the offended

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to
him.
Same; When the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the
ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since
liability under such an action can be determined on mere preponderance of
evidence.When the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on
the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since
liability under such an action can be determined based on mere
preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the
terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his
claim for civil liability.

Same; Only the state through its appellate counsel, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings
before the Court of Appeals (CA) or the Supreme Court.The purpose of a
criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the penal liability of the
accused for having outraged the state with his crime and, if he be found
guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the parties to the action are the
People of the Philippines and the accused. The offended party is regarded
merely as a witness for the state. Also in this wise, only the state, through its
appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole right and authority to institute
proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court.

Same; The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of
the accused that defends on conviction by final judgement.The question of
granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action,
preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The
grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused
that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has
already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability
when warranted, could proceed even in his absence.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 J. Antonio Z. Carpio, Jr. for petitioners.

Arturo E. Balbastro and Jose G. De Ferrer for private respondent.

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the legal standing of the offended parties in a criminal
case to seek, in their personal capacities and without the Solicitor Generals
intervention, reversal of the trial courts order granting bail to the accused on
the ground of absence of strong evidence of guilt.

The Facts and the Case

On January 7, 1992 a number of assailants attacked the household of Sarah

Marie Palma Burgos while all were asleep, killing Sarah and her uncle
Erasmo Palma (Erasmo). Another uncle, Victor Palma (Victor), and a friend,
Benigno Oquendo (Oquendo), survived the attack. The theory of the police
was that a land transaction gone sour between Sarahs live-in partner, David
So (David), and respondent Johnny Co (Co) motivated the assault.

Four months after the incident, the police arrested Cresencio Aman (Aman)
and Romeo Martin (Martin) who executed confessions, allegedly admitting
their part in the attack. They pointed to two others who helped them,
namely, Artemio Pong Bergonia and Danilo Say, and to respondent Co
who allegedly masterminded the whole thing. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, Branch 51, tried the case against Aman and Martin in
Criminal Cases 92-104918-21. The three others remained at large. After
trial, the RTC acquitted them both.

After 10 years or on September 5, 2002 respondent Co surrendered to the

National Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution charged him with two
counts of murder for the deaths of Sarah1 and Erasmo2 and two counts of
frustrated murder

_______________
1 Criminal Case 92-107853.

2 Criminal Case 92-107854.

committed against Oquendo3 and Victor.4 Upon arraignment, Co pleaded

not guilty to the charges.

On September 25, 2002 respondent Co filed a petition for admission to

bail.5 After hearing or on April 14, 2004, the RTC6 granted bail on the
ground that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. The RTC
summarized the prosecutions evidence as follows:

1. Aman and Martins extrajudicial confessions that pointed to Co as the

one who hired them to kill David and his family.

2. Davids testimony as alleged witness to the killing of Sarah. Aman

supposedly told David later when they met that it was Co who ordered the
massacre.

3. Police officer Leopoldo Vasquez, assistant leader of the police team that
investigated the case, said that his team conducted two operations to take Co
into custody. The first was in a restaurant where they waited for him. But Co
got suspicious and when he saw the police, he immediately left the
restaurant, got into his car, and sped away. The police also tried to arrest Co
at his residence but the police did not find him there. Co also offered to
settle the case.

The RTC had a low estimate, however, of the above evidence. First, the
extrajudicial confessions of Aman and Martin, apart from having been
irregularly executed, merely proved their participation in the killing. Neither,
however, claimed conspiracy with respondent Co. Further, the prosecution
did not present Aman or Martin during the bail hearing, reportedly because
Aman was already dead and Martin could not be located. To admit their
sworn statements in evidence
_______________

3 Criminal Case 92-107855.

4 Criminal Case 92-107856.

5 CA Rollo, pp. 39-41.

6 Presided over by Judge Romulo A. Lopez.

would deprive Co of his constitutional right to cross-examine them.

Second, Davids narrations were, to the RTC, contradictory, uncorroborated,

and self-serving, thus lacking in evidentiary weight.

Third, police officer Vasquezs story was likewise uncorroborated. Besides,

while flight is often indicative of guilt, it requires a clear showing of the
identity of the offender and his evasion of arrest. Here, said the RTC, the
prosecution failed to establish Cos identity as the assailant and his reason
for fleeing from the police.

Fourth, the prosecution failed to prove that the offer of settlement came from
Co.

Petitioner heirs of Sarah moved for reconsideration7 but the RTC, now
presided over by another judge,8 denied the same in its Order of May 18,
2005.9 This prompted the victims heirs to file a special civil action of
certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction10 before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 90028.

The CA dismissed the petition,11 however, for having been filed without
involving the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in violation of
jurisprudence12 and the law, specifically, Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III,
Book IV of the Administrative Code which states that:

_______________
7 CA Rollo, pp. 42-52.

8 Judge Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.

9 CA Rollo, pp. 36-38.

10 Id., at pp. 2-19.

11 Rollo, pp. 23-26; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and

concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Vicente S.E.
Veloso.

12 Cited case: Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian

Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc., 432 Phil. 290; 382 SCRA 552
(2002).

Sec. 35. Powers and Functions.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, proceedings,
investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. When authorized
by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent
government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor
General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall
discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have the following
specific powers and functions:

xxxx

(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
Petitioner heirs of Sarah moved for reconsideration13 but the CA denied it
for lack of merit in its Resolution of September 16, 2005,14 hence, the heirs
recourse to this Court.

The Issue

The case raises one issue: whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the
special civil action of certiorari, which questioned the RTCs grant of bail to
respondent Co, for having been filed in the name of the offended parties and
without the OSGs intervention.

The Courts Ruling

Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The
civil aspect is borne of the principle that

_______________

13 Rollo, pp. 31-33.

14 Id., at pp. 28-29.

every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.15

The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused
is the defendant,16 is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.17

The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid
multiplicity of suits.18 Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the
offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect
the damages awarded to him.
But, when the trial court acquits the accused19 or dismisses the case20 on
the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since
liability under such an action can be determined based on mere
preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the
terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his
claim for civil liability.21

The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the

penal liability of the accused for having outraged the state with his crime
and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the parties to
the action are

_______________

15 Revised Penal Code, Article 100.

16 Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 165496, February 12,
2007, 515 SCRA 502, 512-513.

17 Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a).

18 Salazar v. People, 458 Phil. 504, 514; 411 SCRA 598, 605 (2003); Hun
Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, supra note 16, at 511.

19 People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143, 151;
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II, 412 Phil. 795; 360
SCRA 359 (2001).

20 Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., 384 Phil. 322; 327 SCRA 588
(2000).

21 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II, supra note 19.

the People of the Philippines and the accused.22 The offended party is
regarded merely as a witness for the state.23 Also in this wise, only the state,
through its appellate counsel, the OSG,24 has the sole right and authority to
institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court.25

As a general rule, the mandate or authority to represent the state lies only in
the OSG. Thus

It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated
official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the unequivocal mandate to
appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws
creating the office is the discernible intent which may be gathered from the
term shall x x x.

xxxx

The Court is firmly convinced that considering the spirit and the letter of the
law, there can be no other logical interpretation of Sec. 35 of the
Administrative Code than that it is, indeed, mandatory upon the OSG to
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 a lawyer.26

For the above reason, actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if
not initiated by the Solicitor General,

_______________

22 Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, supra note 16, at 514.

23 Id., at p. 511.

24 Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35
(1); Macasaet v. People, 492 Phil. 355, 375; 452 SCRA 255, 276 (2005);
Cario v. De Castro, G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 688, 696;
People v. Puig, G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 564,
575.

25 Cario v. De Castro, supra note 24.

26 Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 816,
832; Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc., supra note 12, at 307; pp. 566-567.

are, as a rule,27 summarily dismissed.28

Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the
criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of
conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability
of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here,
respondent Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award
for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence.

In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,29 this Court allowed the offended party to

challenge before it the trial courts order granting bail. But in that case, the
trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the
appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would leave the
private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice.30
It is not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of
witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that
the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of
Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP 90028 dated June 29, 2005 and its
Resolution dated September 16, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.

_______________

27 Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., supra note 20, at 334.

28 Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc., supra note 12, at 306; p. 565.

29 385 Phil. 208; 328 SCRA 505 (2000).

30 Id., at p. 222; p. 519, citing People v. Calo, G.R. No. 88531, June 18,
1990, 186 SCRA 620, 624. Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos vs. Court of
Appeals, 612 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 169711 February 8, 2010