Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


FACTS: Petitioners in this case seek the annulment of respondent Judges orders in criminal cases
denying petitioners motion for respondent judge to disqualify or inhibit himself from hearing and acting
upon their Motion for New Trial. The SC issued a Resolution asking the respondent Judge to file his
answer. Said Resolution also issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the respondent from further
proceeding with the criminal cases.

The Solicitor General informed the SC that they are "persuaded that there are bases for stating that the
rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his resolution on the motion for new trial were not free from
suspicion of bias and prejudice. The OSG further submits that the case should he remanded to the trial
court for the rendition of a new decision and with instruction to receive additional evidence proferred by
the accused with the right of the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence as may be warranted.

Private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent
Judge and objected to the remand of this case.

Petitioner claimed that the private prosecutor has absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings.
The private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in the
proceedings, and to adopt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor
General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in the present proceedings.

HELD: NO. To begin with, it will be noted that the participation of the private prosecution in the instant
case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate with the
Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this
Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. It was never
intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand independent of or in contravention of
the position taken by the Solicitor General.

The role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party, with respect to the civil action for
the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. 'This civil action is deemed instituted with the
criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it
separately. Therefore, although the private prosecutors may be permitted to intervene, they are not in
control of the case, and their interests are subordinate to those of the People of the Philippines
represented by the fiscal.

It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the State
or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the
State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for
that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal proceedings,
contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter.