[G.R. No. 191320. April 25, 2017.

] Amado Rosete before

the Hon. Delfin D.
JONA Rosario, municipal
BUMATAY, petitioner, vs. LO judge of Malasiqui
LITA BUMATAY, respondent. Pangasinan;
[ii.] Again, on November 6,
2003, while her
DECISION husband Amado Rosete
was still alive and her
marriage with him was
CAGUIOA, J p: valid and subsisting,
Ms. Lolita Ferrer
Before this Court is a petition for contracted another
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of marriage with Jose M.
the Rules of Court filed by Petitioner Jona Bumatay in Malasiqui,
Bumatay (Jona) against herein Pangasinan;
Respondent Lolita Bumatay (Lolita),
assailing the Court of Appeals': [iii.] When Lolita Ferrer
(1) Decision 1 dated August 28, 2009, contracted her second
which denied Petitioner's appeal in the marriage with Jose
case of People of the Philippines v. Lolita Bumatay, she knows
F. Bumatay, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. fully well that her first
31124; and (2) Resolution 2 dated marriage with her first
February 4, 2010 denying Petitioner's husband Mr. Amado
Motion for Reconsideration. Rosete, who is still
living up to today, has
The Facts not been legally
Lolita allegedly married a certain dissolved but
Amado Rosete (Amado) on January 30, existing[.] 9
1968, when she was 16 years old. 3 The In her Counter-Affidavit, Lolita
marriage was solemnized before Judge claims that she learned from her children
Delfin D. Rosario, in Malasiqui, (with Amado) that Amado had filed a
Pangasinan. 4 Prior to the declaration of petition for declaration of nullity of their
nullity of her marriage with Amado on marriage. 10Subsequently, sometime in
September 20, 2005, 5 Lolita married 1990, she was informed by her children
Jona's foster father, 6 Jose Bumatay that Amado had died in Nueva
(Jose), on November 6, 2003. 7 Vizcaya. 11
On August 17, 2004, Jona filed Subsequently, an Information for
a Complaint-affidavit for Bigamy against Bigamy was filed by Prosecutor Bernardo
Lolita, 8 summarizing the acts S. Valdez of the Office of the Provincial
complained of as follows: Prosecutor of San Carlos City, with the
[i.] On January 30, 1968, Ms. Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City,
Lolita Ferrer contracted Pangasinan, Branch 56 (RTC-San Carlos)
marriage with a certain
1|Page
on November 8, 2004. 12 The to contract their
Information alleged: marriage, to
the damage
The undersigned
and prejudice of
Government Prosecutor,
complainant,
hereby accuses LOLITA
Jona S.
BUMATAY y FERRER, of the
Bumatay.
crime of BIGAMY, committed
Contrary to
as follows:
Article 349 of
That on the Revised
or about Penal Code.
November 6, San Carlos City,
2003, in the Pangasinan,
municipality of October 7,
Malasiqui, 2004. 13
province of The Proceedings before the RTC-
Pangasinan, Dagupan City on Lolita's Petition for
Philippines, and Declaration of Nullity
within the
jurisdiction of Meanwhile, sometime in January
this Honorable 2005 — after the Information for Bigamy
Court, the against her was filed 14 in the RTC-San
above-named Carlos but before her arraignment, Lolita
accused Lolita filed with the Regional Trial Court of
F. Bumatay Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch
being then 43 15 (RTC-Dagupan City) a petition for
legally married the declaration of nullity of her marriage
to one Amado to Amado. 16
Rosete, which
On September 20, 2005, the RTC-
marriage is still
Dagupan City issued
subsisting not
a Decision 17 declaring as null and void
having been
the marriage between Lolita and
legally
Amado, viz.:
dissolved, did
then and there, WHEREFORE, in view
willfully, of all of the above, judgment
unlawfully and is hereby rendered by this
feloniously Honorable Court as follows:
contracted a 1. Declaring the marriage
second between the plaintiff
marriage with Lolita Ferrer and the
Jose Bumatay, defendant Amado
believing that Rosete void ab
accused has the initio; CAIHTE
legal capacity
2|Page
 2. Ordering the Local Civil Subsequently, in
Registrar of Malasiqui, its Order 27 dated March 20, 2006, the
Pangasinan to make the RTC-San Carlos granted Lolita's Motion
proper annotations in to Quash and dismissed the complaint for
the entry of marriage of bigamy, relying on Morigo v.
the parties in their People, 28 thus:
Register of Marriages.
Due to the significant
SO ORDERED. 18 resemblance of this case to
the Morigo case, this Court
Based on the evidence submitted,
is constrained to adopt and
including the testimonies from Lolita
apply the ruling and
herself and her sister Erlinda, 19 the
principles laid down
RTC-Dagupan City found that no
in Morigo. As succinctly put
marriage ceremony took place between
by the Supreme Court in the
Lolita and Amado as it was Lolita's sister
case aforementioned[:]
who had married Amado and that, in fact,
the signature appearing on the marriage "The first
certificate was not Lolita's signature but element of
that of her sister's. 20 Thus, to the RTC- bigamy as a
Dagupan City, there being no marriage crime requires
ceremony that actually took place that the
between Amado and Lolita, 21 their accused must
marriage was void from the very have been
beginning. 22 legally married,
but in this case,
The Bigamy Proceedings before the
legally
RTC-San Carlos
speaking, the
In the bigamy case in RTC-San petitioner was
Carlos involving Criminal Case No. SCC- never married
4357, Lolita sought a deferment of the to Lucia
arraignment for bigamy. On November 2, Barrete. Thus,
2005, 23 she filed a Motion to there is no first
Quash 24 the Information. Her motion marriage to
was hinged on the argument that the first speak of. Under
element of the crime of bigamy — that is, the principle of
that the offender has been previously retroactivity of
legally married — is not present. In a marriage
support, Lolita attached a copy of the being declared
RTC-Dagupan City Decision 25 declaring void ab initio,
the marriage between her and Amado the two were
void ab initio on the ground that there never married
was no marriage ceremony between them from the
and what transpired was a marriage by beginning. The
proxy. 26 contract of
marriage is
3|Page
 null; it bears no then, pursuant to the ruling in Morigo,
legal effect. there is no first marriage to begin with in
Taking this determining the foremost element of
argument to its bigamy. Such declaration of nullity
logical retroacts to the date of the first
conclusion, for marriage. 31 Thus, accused Lolita in this
legal purposes, case was, for all intents and purposes,
petitioner was never married to Amado at the time she
not married to contracted the marriage with Jose. Based
Lucia Barrete at on the foregoing, the RTC-San Carlos
the time he dismissed the Bigamy charge against
contracted the Lolita. Aggrieved, Jona appealed the RTC-
marriage with San Carlos' Order to the CA.
Maria Lumbago.
The CA Decision
The petitioner,
must perforce, In its Decision dated August 28,
be acquitted of 2009, 32 the CA affirmed the RTC-San
the charge." Carlos' Order dated March 20, 2006
Since the first granting the Motion to
marriage has been declared Quash and dismissed Jona's appeal. The
void ab initio, there is no CA resolved the issue of whether the
first marriage to begin with RTC-San Carlos erred in ordering the
in determining the foremost quashal of the Information for Bigamy on
element of bigamy. Such the ground that the criminal liability of
declaration of nullity the accused had been extinguished when
retroacts to the date of the her first marriage was declared null and
first marriage. The accused void ab initio. 33
in this case was, under the In upholding the RTC-San Carlos'
eyes of the law, never decision, the CA held that: aScITE
married to Amado Rosete at
First, a motion to quash is the
the time she contracted the
mode by which an accused assails, before
marriage with Jose Bumatay.
entering his plea, the validity of the
Following this judicial fiat,
criminal complaint or information filed
the defense of good faith
against him for insufficiency on its face in
and lack of criminal intent
point of law, or for a defect apparent on
has been rendered moot and
the face of the Information. 34 Under
academic." 29
Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules of Court,
The RTC-San Carlos concluded that in the hearing of a motion to quash, only
there were "glaring material such facts as are alleged in the
similarities" 30 between Morigo and the information, and those admitted by the
case against Lolita. Thus, in dismissing prosecutor, should be taken into account
the bigamy case against Lolita, the RTC- in the resolution thereof unless the Rules
San Carlos held that since the first expressly permit the investigation of the
marriage has been declared void ab initio, facts alleged in the motion to quash.
4|Page
However, the Supreme Court has held
that under Rule 117, Section 2 of
the Rules of Court, a motion to quash
may be based on factual and legal
grounds and that it necessarily follows
that facts outside the Information itself
may be introduced to prove such
grounds. 35
Here, the trial court anchored its
acquittal on the Declaration of
Nullity issued by the RTC-Dagupan City,
on the ground that no actual marriage
ceremony took place.36 The RTC-
Dagupan City reasoned that there being
no first marriage to speak of, there was
no legal impediment at the time the
accused married Jose Bumatay; and as a
consequence, the accused is not guilty of
bigamy. Consequently, according to the
CA, it is crystal clear that in granting the
motion to quash, the RTC-Dagupan City
took into consideration the factual
findings of the RTC-Dagupan City which
led to the latter's declaration that the
marriage of Lolita and Amado was null
and void ab initio. 37
Finally, the CA was not persuaded
by Jona's contention that the RTC-San
Carlos erred in granting the motion to
quash on the basis of the decision
declaring the nullity of the first marriage
since it is not among the grounds for
extinction of criminal liability. The CA
agreed with the RTC-San Carlos'
conclusion that the extinction of criminal
liability presupposes the existence of such
liability in the first place, which is later
totally obliterated by virtue of a certain
circumstance that eventually happens. In
the present case, criminal liability never
existed from the beginning as the first
marriage never validly occurred due to
the fact that a marriage ceremony never
5|Page
took place. Hence, there was no criminal
liability to extinguish in the first place. 38
Jona's Motion for
Reconsideration was likewise denied by
the CA in its Resolution dated February 4,
2010, 39 finding that the arguments
raised in the Motion for Reconsideration
are substantially a reiteration of those
already passed upon and considered by
the CA in its Decision. Jona received a
copy of said CA Resolution on February
17, 2010. 40
On April 5, 2010, Jona filed, in her
personal capacity, the instant petition. In
a Resolution dated April 28, 2010, the
Court required Lolita to file her
comment. 41 Lolita filed
her Comment 42 on June 11, 2010, while
Jona filed her Reply (with Compliance) on
March 9, 2011. 43
The Issue
The sole issue brought before this
Court is whether the CA committed any
reversible error in upholding the RTC-San
Carlos' Order granting Lolita's motion to
quash the Information for the crime of
Bigamy.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is denied.
Based on the records, it appears
undisputed that Petitioner has no legal
personality to assail the dismissal of the
criminal case. Rule 110, Section 5 44 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, 45 dictates that all criminal
actions commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases
before the Supreme Court, the authority
to represent the State is vested solely in
the Office of the Solicitor General Appeals, and all
(OSG). 46 other courts or
tribunals in all
This authority is codified in Section
civil actions and
35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of
special
the 1987 Administrative Code, which
proceedings in
provides:
which the
SECTION 35. Powers Government or
and Functions. — The Office any officer
of the Solicitor General shall thereof in his
represent the Government of official capacity is
the Philippines, its agencies a party.
and instrumentalities and its (Emphasis
officials and agents in any supplied)
litigation, proceeding,
Thus, in criminal cases, the People
investigation or matter
is the real party-in-interest and only the
requiring the services of a
OSG can represent the People in criminal
lawyer. When authorized by
proceedings before this Court. Inasmuch
the President or head of the
as the private offended party is but a
office concerned, it shall also
witness in the prosecution of
represent government-
offenses, 47 the interest of the private
owned or controlled
offended party is limited only to the
corporations. The Office of
aspect of civil liability. 48 It follows
the Solicitor General shall
therefore that in criminal cases, the
constitute the law office of
dismissal of the case against an accused
the Government and, as
can only be appealed by the Solicitor
such, shall discharge duties
General, acting on behalf of the State. 49
requiring the services of a
lawyer. It shall have the In Beams Philippine Export Corp. v.
following specific powers and Castillo, 50 a similar appeal by a private
functions: party of a criminal case, the Court
cogently disposed, thus:
(1) Represent the
Government in "The purpose of a
the Supreme criminal action, in its purest
Court and the sense, is to determine the
Court of penal liability of the accused
Appeals in all for having outraged the
criminal state with his crime and, if
proceedings; he be found guilty, to punish
represent the him for it. In this sense, the
Government and parties to the action are the
its officers in the People of the Philippines and
Supreme Court, the accused. The offended
the Court of

6|Page
 party is regarded merely as decision of the RTC, not the
a witness for the state." civil aspect of the case. . . .
Consequently, the xxx xxx xxx
sole authority to institute
Clearly, the petition is
proceedings before the CA or
bereft of any claim for civil
the SC is vested only on the
liability. In fact, the
OSG. Under Presidential
petitioner did not even
Decree No. 478, among the
briefly discuss the alleged
specific powers and
civil liability of the
functions of the OSG was to
respondents. As such, it is
"represent the Government
apparent that the
in the [SC] and the [CA] in
petitioner's only desire was
all criminal proceedings x x
to appeal the dismissal of
x." This provision has been
the criminal case against the
carried over to the Revised
respondents. Since estafa,
Administrative
however, is a criminal
Code particularly in Book IV,
offense, only the OSG has
Title III, Chapter 12 thereof.
the power to prosecute the
Clearly, the OSG is the
case on appeal. Therefore,
appellate counsel of the
the petitioner lacked the
People of the Philippines in
personality or legal standing
all criminal cases.
to question the RTC
Moreover, in Bautista decision. 51
v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, this
While this Court is mindful of
Court held that in criminal
cases 52 where the private offended
cases, the acquittal of the
party was allowed to pursue a criminal
accused or the dismissal of
action on his or her own behalf — such as
the case against him can
when there is a denial of due process —
only be appealed by the
such exceptional circumstances do not
OSG, acting on behalf of the
exist in this case. The OSG, in
State. The private
its Manifestation, 53 expressly stated
complainant or the offended
that it will not file a reply to
party may question such
Lolita'scomment on the petition for
acquittal or dismissal only
review on certiorari considering that it did
insofar as the civil liability of
not file the present petition. 54
the accused is concerned.
To be sure, Jona's personality to
In the present case, a
even institute the bigamy case and
perusal of the petition
thereafter to appeal the RTC-San
for certiorari filed by the
Carlos' Order 55 dismissing the same is
petitioner before the CA
nebulous, at best. Settled is the rule that
discloses that it sought
"every action must be prosecuted or
reconsideration of the
defended in the name of the real party in
criminal aspect of the
interest[,]" who, in turn, is one "who
7|Page
stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or by the party
entitled to the avails of the
suit." 56 Within this context, "interest"
means material interest or an interest in
issue to be affected by the decree or
judgment of the case, as distinguished
from mere interest in the question
involved. 57 To be clear, real interest
refers to a present substantial interest,
and not a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential
interest. 58
Here, the record is replete with
indications 59 that Jona's natural parents
are unknown and she was merely raised
as the "foster daughter" of Jose Bumatay,
without having undergone the process of
legal adoption. 60 It likewise does not
escape the Court's attention that in
the Petition for the Issuance of Letters of
Administration filed by Rodelio Bumatay
(Jose Bumatay's nephew), Jona was
described as "claiming to be the adopted
[child] of [Jose] but cannot present legal
proof to this effect." 61 Finally, even in
her own Reply 62 (to the comment to the
petition for review), Jona merely denotes
herself as "the only child of the late Jose
Bumatay," 63 without, however,
presenting or even indicating any
document or proof to support her claim of
personality or legal standing. HEITAD
Based on the foregoing, the Court
does not see the need and will not waste
its precious time in even delving into the
question of whether or not the CA
decision upholding the dismissal of the
Bigamy case was erroneous or not.
Indeed, in view of the lack of personality
of the party who filed the petition, any
such discourse by the Court would be
obiter and correctly characterized as an
advisory opinion.
8|Page
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, this Court resolves
to DENY the instant petition for lack of
merit and AFFIRM the Court of
Appeals' Decision dated August 28, 2009
and Resolution dated February 4, 2010.
SO ORDERED.
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal
actions. — All criminal actions either
commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a
public prosecutor. In case of heavy
work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of
public prosecutors, the private
prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional
State Prosecutor to prosecute the
case subject to the approval of the
court. Once so authorized to
prosecute the criminal action, the
private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to the end of
the trial even in the absence of a
public prosecutor, unless the
authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn.
||| (Bumatay v. Bumatay, G.R. No.
191320, [April 25, 2017])
ROSANELLE MAY
DEATO, petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames : September 10, 2003 until the obligation
would be fully paid. 4
Please take notice that the Court, First
However, the MTC acquitted the petitioner
Division, issued a Resolution dated January
on the remaining nine counts (i.e., Criminal
21, 2015 which reads as follows:
Cases Nos. 03-803, 03-804, 03-805, 03-
"G.R. No. 175519 — ROSANELLE MAY 806, 03-807, 03-808, 03-809, 03-810 and
DEATO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 03-814) on the ground that the amounts of
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. the checks involved therein had already been
In its decision rendered on September 4, paid by her.
2006, 1 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Upon the denial by the RTC of her motion for
Malolos, Bulacan affirmed the petitioner's reconsideration on November 9, 2006, 5 the
conviction for 13 counts of violation of Batas petitioner came directly to the Court via
Pambansa Blg. 22 by the Municipal Trial petition for review on certiorari, asserting
Court (MTC) of Meycauayan, Bulacan. 2 that the RTC thereby decided a question of
The petitioner was charged with 22 counts of substance in a way not in accord with law
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in and with the applicable decisions of the
separate complaints, all dated August 21, Supreme Court, specifically positing: EITcaD
2003, filed in the MTC. On February 7, 2006, I
the MTC rendered judgment after a joint
THAT THE COURT A QUO
trial, 3 finding her guilty beyond reasonable
ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT
doubt of 13 counts of violation of Batas
THE TIME OF ISSUE OF THE
Pambansa Blg. 22, and penalizing her with
SUBJECT CHECKS IS
fines in the following amounts, to wit:
IMMATERIAL AND
Criminal Case No. 03-811 — P72,800.00;
CONSEQUENTLY NOT AN
Criminal Case No. 03-812 — P25,000.00;
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
Criminal Case No. 03-813 — P26,000.00;
OF VIOLATION OF B.P.
Criminal Case No. 03-815 — P36,400.00;
22 CONTRARY TO THE
Criminal Case No. 03-816 — P50,629.00;
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
Criminal Case No. 03-817 — P46,646.00;
THE HONORABLE SUPREME
Criminal Case No. 03-818 — P52,000.00;
COURT.
Criminal Case No. 03-819 — P20,200.00;
Criminal Case No. 03-820 — P44,598.00; II
Criminal Case No. 03-821 — P75,600.00; THAT THE PROSECUTION'S
Criminal Case No. 03-822 — P78,400.00; FAILURE TO ALLEGE AND
Criminal Case No. 03-823 — P41,500.00 and PROVE THE ELEMENT OF
Criminal Case No. 03-824 — P54,000.00, TIME OF ISSUE OF THE
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of SUBJECT CHECKS IS
insolvency to pay the fine and to pay the CONTRARY TO RULE 110,
costs; and further ordering her to pay to SECTION 11 OF THE 2000
complainant Rosalinda Ignacio the total sum REVISED RULES ON
of P623,773.00 representing the aggregate CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND
value of the 13 dishonored checks, plus IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
interest of 12% per annum computed from ACCUSED'S

9|Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO petition shows prima
BE INFORMED OF THE facie that the lower court
CAUSE AND NATURE OF has committed an error of
ACCUSATION AGAINST fact or law that will
HER. 6 warrant a reversal or
modification of the
The appeal is devoid of merit and should be
decision or judgment
denied.
sought to be reviewed.
The recourse of the petitioner from the (Emphasis supplied)
adverse decision of the RTC rendered in the
To implement Section 22 of Batas Pambansa
exercise of appellate jurisdiction is not to
Blg. 129, the Court promulgated Section 1 of
appeal directly to the Court by petition for
Rule 42,Rules of Court, which is expressly
review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of
made applicable to appeals of judgments or
Court, but to appeal to the Court of Appeals
final orders rendered by the Regional Trial
(CA) through a petition for review under Rule
Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
42, Rules of Court. The appellate jurisdiction
in criminal cases, 7 which provide as follows:
of the CA over the petitioner's appeal from
the RTC is exclusive, considering the express Section 1. How appeal taken;
language of Section 22 of Batas Pambansa time for filing. — A party
Blg. 129, to wit: desiring to appeal from a
decision of the Regional
Sec. 22. Appellate
Trial Court rendered in the
jurisdiction. — Regional Trial
exercise of its appellate
Courts shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction may file a
jurisdiction over all cases
verified petition for review
decided by Metropolitan Trial
with the Court of Appeals,
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
paying at the same time to
and Municipal Circuit Trial
the clerk of said court the
Courts in their respective
corresponding docket and
territorial jurisdictions. Such
other lawful fees, depositing
cases shall be decided on the
the amount of P500.00 for
basis of the entire record of
costs, and furnishing the
the proceedings had in the
Regional Trial Court and the
court of origin and such
adverse party with a copy of
memoranda and/or briefs as
the petition. The petition shall
may be submitted by the
be filed and served within
parties or required by the
fifteen (15) days from notice
Regional Trial Courts. The
of the decision sought to be
decision of the Regional
reviewed or of the denial of
Trial Courts in such cases
petitioner's motion for new
shall be appealable by
trial or reconsideration filed in
petition for review to the
due time after judgment.
Intermediate Appellate
Upon proper motion and the
Court which may give it
payment of the full amount of
due course only when the
the docket and other lawful
10 | P a g e
 fees and the deposit for costs
before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the
Court of Appeals may grant an
additional period of fifteen
(15) days only within which to
file the petition for review. No
further extension shall be
granted except for the most
compelling reason and in no
case to exceed fifteen (15)
days. (Emphasis supplied)
It did not matter that the appeal of the
petitioner, as represented in her petition for
review on certiorari, seemingly involved only
a question of law. The appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court over appeals involving
pure questions of law as expressly set forth
under Section 5, 8 Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution is restricted to such questions
arising in the first instance in the lower
courts. In contrast, her appeal of the ruling
of the RTC in the exercise of the latter's
appellate jurisdiction should be brought to
the CA by petition for review, and could also
focus on a question of law only. Section 2,
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court precisely states
that the petition for review shall set forth
concisely therein a statement of the matters
involved, the issues raised, the specification
of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly
committed by the RTC, and the reasons or
arguments relied upon for the allowance of
the appeal. 9 Her advantage under that
mode of appeal is to give her the benefit of
an intermediate review by the CA. HASTCa
Under the circumstances, the petitioner's
appeal is denied because of her disregard of
the law and the Rules of Court. Considering
that appeal is a mere statutory right, her
appeal of the affirmance of her convictions
by the RTC should comply with the rules
prescribed by the law or rules of procedure
11 | P a g e
establishing her right to appeal; otherwise,
the right is waived.
But even if the Court were to deal with and
now adjudicate her recourse, the petitioner
would still not be entitled to reversal of her
convictions. The records clearly indicate that
she did not deny having issued for value the
13 checks that are the focus of her appeal;
and having known at the time of issue that
she did not have sufficient funds or credit
with the drawee banks for the payment of
such checks in full upon their presentment,
having actually admitted that such checks
were dishonored by the drawee banks.
Verily, she did not refute or rebut the
Prosecution's showing of her knowledge of
the insufficiency of funds to pay the checks,
rendering her guilty of the offenses
charged.Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a law
that seeks to prevent the making and issuing
of a check with the maker or issuer knowing
that at the time of issue he or she does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the
bank for the purpose of paying the check,
and the check is subsequently dishonored
upon its presentment. What is being
punished is the issuance of a worthless
check. The purpose for the issuance of the
check as well as the terms and conditions
relating thereto are not essential in the
successful prosecution of the
offense. 10 Plainly, she violated the
language and spirit of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22.
Moreover, the petitioner's contention, that
the specific dates of the issuance of the
checks were material ingredients of the
offenses charged, and should thus be
averred in the informations, cannot stand
serious scrutiny. As previously stated, what
were essential to constitute the offenses
charged were, firstly, her knowledge that at
the time of issue she did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the bank for the
purpose of paying the checks, and secondly,
the checks were subsequently dishonored
upon their presentment. In short, the dates
of issuance were not material ingredients of
the offenses charged. It serves well to
emphasize that the phrase at the time of
issue is only descriptive of the
word knowledge, meaning that the State
must establish that the accused had
knowledge at the time of the check's
issuance that he or she would not be able to
pay the check in full when it falls due on the
date of the check.
Yet, even assuming that the specific dates of
issuance of the checks were material
ingredients of the offenses charged, and thus
should have been stated in the informations,
the petitioner had effectively waived such
defects by her failure either to ask for a bill
of particulars or to move to quash on the
ground that the informations did not charge
any offense. Indeed, in the occasions where
the issues centered on the informations
being vague on account of the indefiniteness
of the dates of the commission of the crime
as to deprive the accused of the right to be
informed of the natures and causes of the
accusations, the Court has uniformly held
that the accused could have actively sought
bills of particulars or moved to quash the
informations before submitting themselves
to arraignment. 11 In similar fashion, the
petitioner could not now complain because
she had not timely asserted her right to so
assail the informations prior to being
arraigned.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the
petition for review on certiorari;
and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs
of suit. EaCSHI
SO ORDERED."
12 | P a g e
7.Section 3, Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court states:
Section, 3. How appeal taken. — . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review under Rule 42.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
8.Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
xxx xxx xxx
e. All cases in which only an error or
question of law is involved.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
9.Section 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court, reads:
Sec. 2. Form and contents. — The petition
shall be filed in seven (7) legible
copies, with the original copy
intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner,
and shall (a) state the full names of
the parties to the case, without
impleading the lower courts or
judges thereof either as petitioners
or respondents; (b) indicate the
specific material dates showing that
it was filed on time; (c) set forth
concisely a statement of the
matters involved, the issues
raised, the specification of errors
of fact or law, or both, allegedly
committed by the Regional Trial
 Court, and the reasons or
arguments relied upon for the
allowance of the appeal; (d) be
accompanied by clearly legible
duplicate originals or true copies of
the judgments or final orders of both
lower courts, certified correct by the
clerk of court of the Regional Trial
Court, the requisite number of plain
copies thereof and of the pleadings
and other material portions of the
record as would support the
allegations of the petition
||| (Deato v. People, G.R. No. 175519
(Notice), [January 21, 2015])
JOSE BURGOS,
JR., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES
ELADIO SJ. NAVAL and
ARLINA B. NAVAL, and
AMALIA B.
NAVAL, respondents.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J p:
Assailed in this petition for review
on certiorari 1 are the Resolutions dated
March 5, 2015 2 and July 2, 2015 3 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 138203, which denied petitioner Jose
Burgos, Jr.'s (Burgos) petition
for certiorari 4 before it for his lack of
authority to initiate and bring the same in
the name of the People of the Philippines
(People).
The Facts
This case stemmed from a letter-
complaint 5 dated April 26, 2012 filed by
13 | P a g e
Burgos, before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, Taytay, Rizal, charging
respondents spouses Eladio and Arlina
Naval (Sps. Naval) and their daughter,
Amalia Naval (Amalia; collectively
respondents), of the crime
of Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents. Burgos alleged that he and
his wife, Rubie S. Garcia-Burgos, were
the registered owners of a lot with an
area of 1,389 square meters, situated in
the Municipality of Taytay, Rizal, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
550579 (subject lot). 6 On November 19,
1996, the subject lot was purportedly
mortgaged to a certain Antonio
Assad, 7 and subsequently, Burgos
decided to obtain a loan from Sps. Naval
in order to avoid foreclosure.
Respondents agreed and asked spouses
Burgos to sign some blank documents in
return — to which they faithfully
complied. 8
Sometime in February 2011,
Burgos allegedly discovered that TCT No.
550579 was cancelled, and a new one
was issued, i.e., TCT No. 644582, 9 in
favor of Sps. Naval on April 1, 1998. He
claimed that the blank documents which
he and his wife previously signed turned
out to be a receipt 10 and a Deed of
Absolute Sale 11 over the subject lot
through the ploy and conspiracy of
respondents. Thereafter, or on February
11, 2013, an Information 12 was filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo
City, Branch 97 (RTC), docketed as
Criminal Case No. 13-45768, accusing
respondents of having committed the
aforesaid crime. 13
Before arraignment, respondents
filed a motion to quash 14 based on the
following grounds: (a) that their criminal
liability has been extinguished due to
prescription;15 (b) that the information
failed to charge Amalia with an
offense; 16 and (c) that they were not
afforded the opportunity of a preliminary
investigation. 17 Respondents averred
that since the information was filed on
February 11, 2013, beyond the
reglementary period of ten (10) years
from the registration of the title on April
1, 1998, the crime had already
prescribed. They also claimed that the
information did not contain any specific
charge against Amalia. Finally, they
maintained that they were deprived of
their right to dispute the allegations of
the complaint during the preliminary
investigation. 18
The RTC Ruling
In an Order 19 dated August 14,
2013, the RTC granted respondents'
motion and, consequently, dismissed the
case on the ground of prescription.
The RTC essentially observed that
the prescriptive period for the alleged
crime commenced from the time Burgos
had constructive notice of the alleged
falsification,i.e., when the document was
registered with the Register of Deeds on
April 1, 1998. Therefore, since more than
ten (10) years had elapsed when the
information was filed on February 11,
2013, the subject crime had
prescribed. 20
Aggrieved, Burgos moved for
reconsideration, 21 which was denied in
an Order 22 dated July 14, 2014.
Notably, the RTC declared that it could
not order the public prosecutor to amend
the information to include the specific
amount of damage sustained by Burgos
amounting to P8,500,000.00, as it would
improperly infringe his executive
functions. 23 Thus, Burgos elevated the
14 | P a g e
matter to the CA via a petition
for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
138203.
The CA Ruling
In a Resolution 24 dated March 5,
2015, the CA dismissed the petition for
failure of Burgos to join the People in
his certiorari petition as required by
the Administrative Code of
1987. 25 AaCTcI
Unstirred, Burgos moved for
reconsideration, 26 which was likewise
denied in a Resolution dated July 2, 2015.
Significantly, the CA observed that the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has
not consented to the filing of
the certiorari petition; 27 hence, this
petition before the Court.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution
is whether or not the CA correctly
dismissed the certiorari petition on the
ground that the People, as represented
by the OSG, was not impleaded as a
party.
The Court's Ruling
In his petition, Burgos averred that
the CA Resolutions dated March 5, 2015
and July 2, 2015 should be declared null
and void for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. He claimed
that he already complied with the
directive to furnish the OSG with a copy
of the certiorari petition before the
CA, 28 and that he even made a letter
dated April 7, 2015, 29 requesting the
OSG for authority to appear and
prosecute the case on behalf of the
People. Relatedly, he prayed for the
reinstatement of the Information and/or a
declaration that prescription has not yet
set in as the crime of Estafa through officials and agents in any
Falsification of Public Documents was only litigation, proceeding,
discovered sometime in February investigation or matter
2011. 30 requiring the services of
lawyer. . . . . It shall have
In their comment, 31 respondents
the following specific powers
maintained that Burgos nevertheless
and functions:
failed to furnish the OSG with a copy of
the certiorari petition filed before the CA (1) Represent
as mandated by Section 3, 32 Rule 46 of the
the Rules of Court, which is a sufficient Government
ground for its dismissal. 33 In fact, they in the
averred that Burgos did not even attempt Supreme
to change or amend the title of the Court and the
petition from "Jose Burgos, Jr." to "People Court of
of the Philippines." 34 Moreover, they Appeals in all
pointed out that Burgos's letter-request criminal
for authority addressed to the OSG was proceedings;
filed only on April 10, 2015 or nine (9) represent the
days after Burgos's receipt of the adverse Government
March 5, 2015 CA Resolution, further and its officers
alleging that mere request from the OSG in the Supreme
is not tantamount to authority. 35 Court, the
Court of
The Court finds for respondents.
Appeals, and all
Jurisprudence dictates that it is the other courts or
OSG which possesses the requisite tribunals in all
authority to represent the People in an civil actions and
appeal on the criminal aspect of a special
case. 36 The OSG is "the law office of the proceedings in
Government whose specific powers and which the
functions include that of representing the Government or
Republic and/or the [P]eople before any any officer
court in any action which affects the thereof in his
welfare of the people as the ends of official capacity
justice may require." 37 Section 35 (1), is a party.
Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 (Emphases
Administrative Code 38 provides that: supplied)
Section 35. Powers In People v. Piccio (Piccio), 39 this
and Functions. — The Court held that "if there is a dismissal of
Office of the Solicitor a criminal case by the trial court or if
General shall represent there is an acquittal of the accused, it is
the Government of the only the OSG that may bring an appeal
Philippines, its agencies on the criminal aspect representing the
and instrumentalities and its People. The rationale therefor is rooted in
15 | P a g e
the principle that the party affected by
the dismissal of the criminal action is the
People and not the petitioners who are
mere complaining witnesses. For this
reason, the People are therefore
deemed as the real parties in interest
in the criminal case and, therefore,
only the OSG can represent them in
criminal proceedings pending in the
CA or in this Court. In view of the
corollary principle that every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment
in the suit, or by the party entitled to the
avails of the suit, 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. 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." 40 EcTCAD
In this case, records show that
Burgos's petition for certiorari in CA-G.R.
SP No. 138203 sought for the
reinstatement of the Information
and/or a ruling that the crime has
not yet prescribed. 41 Accordingly, the
same was not intended to merely
preserve his interest in the civil aspect of
the case. Thus, as his certiorari petition
was filed seeking for relief/s in relation to
the criminal aspect of the case, it is
necessary that the same be filed with the
authorization of the OSG, which, by law,
is the proper representative of the
People, the real party in interest in the
16 | P a g e
criminal proceedings. As the CA aptly
noted, "[t]o this date, the [OSG] as
appellant's counsel of the [People] has
not consented to the filing of the present
suit." 42 There being no authorization
given — as his request to the OSG filed
on April 10, 2015 was not shown to have
been granted — the certiorari petition
was rightfully dismissed.
It must, however, be clarified that
the CA's dismissal of
Burgos's certiorari petition is without
prejudice to his filing of the appropriate
action to preserve his interest in the civil
aspect of the Estafa through Falsification
of Public Documents case, provided that
the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure are complied
with.43
It is noteworthy to point out that
"[t]he extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it the extinction of the civil
action where[:] (a) the acquittal is based
on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is
required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil;
and (c) the civil liability of the accused
does not arise from or is not based upon
the crime of which the accused was
acquitted. The civil action based on delict
may, however, be deemed extinguished if
there is a finding on the final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist." 44 In this case, the
RTC did not render any ruling that the act
or omission from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist; instead, the RTC
granted the motion to quash and thereby,
dismissed the criminal case on the sole
ground of prescription. Any misgivings
regarding the propriety of that disposition
is for the People, thru the OSG, and not
 for Burgos to argue. As earlier intimated, EILEEN
Burgos's remedy is to institute a civil case P. DAVID, petitioner, vs. GLE
under the parameters of Rule 111 of NDA
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. SDHTEC S. MARQUEZ, respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The Resolutions dated March
5, 2015 and July 2, 2015 of the Court of DECISION
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138203 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
TIJAM, J p:
SO ORDERED.
This is a Petition for Review
on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45, assailing
32.Section 3. Contents and filing of
the Decision 2 dated May 29, 2013 and
petition; effect of
Resolution 3 dated November 6, 2013 of
noncompliance with
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
requirements. — . . . .
No. 124839, reinstating the criminal
xxx xxx xxx cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly against Petitioner Eileen David. HTcADC
legible copies together with proof The Procedural and Factual
of service thereof on the Antecedents
respondent with the original copy
In a Sinumpaang Salaysay filed
intended for the court indicated
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
as such by the petitioner, and
Manila, Respondent
shall be accompanied by a clearly
Glenda Marquez alleged, among others,
legible duplicate original or
that she is a resident of Sampaloc, Manila
certified true copy of the
and that sometime in March 2005,
judgment, order, resolution, or
petitioner approached her in Kidapawan
ruling subject thereof, such
City and represented that she could
material portions of the record as
recruit her to work abroad. 4 It was
are referred to therein, and other
further alleged that petitioner demanded
documents relevant or pertinent
payment of placement fees and other
thereto. . . . .
expenses from the respondent for the
xxx xxx xxx processing of the latter's application, to
The failure of the petitioner to comply which the respondent
with any of the foregoing heeded. 5 Respondent's application was,
requirements shall be sufficient however, denied and worse, the money
ground for the dismissal of the that she put out therefor was never
petition. (Emphasis supplied) returned. 6

||| (Burgos, Jr. v. Spouses Naval, G.R. No. In her Counter-Affidavit and
219468 (Resolution), [June 8, 2016]) Counter Charge, petitioner averred that it
was physically impossible for her to have
committed the said acts as she was in

17 | P a g e
Canada at the alleged time of recruitment
as evidenced by the entries in her
passport. 7 Petitioner further averred
that she was never engaged in the
recruitment business. 8 The petitioner
alleged that the amount deposited in her
account was not for her but was just
coursed through her to be given to her
friend in Canada who was the one
processing respondent's application, as
evidenced by a certification to that effect
issued by the said friend. 9 Further,
petitioner argued before the Prosecutor
that assumingarguendo that the
allegations of recruitment were true, the
case should be filed in Kidapawan City
and not in Manila. 10
On December 9, 2008, two
separate Informations were filed against
petitioner for Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa, respectively. The accusatory
portions thereof read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 08-
265539
The undersigned
accuses EILEEN DAVID of a
violation of Article 38 (a),
P.D. No. 1412, amending
certain provision of Book I,
P.D. No. 442, otherwise
known as the New Labor
Code of the Philippines, in
relation to Article 13 (b) and
(c) of said code, as further
amended by P.D. Nos. 1693,
1920, and 2018 and as
further amended by Sec. 6
(a), (l) and (m) of Republic
Act 8042, committed as
follows:
That sometime in the
month of March, 2005, in
the City of Manila,
18 | P a g e
Philippines, the said accused
representing herself to have
the capacity to contract,
enlist and transport Filipino
workers overseas,
particularly in Canada, did
then and there willfully,
unlawfully, for a fee, recruit
and promise
employment/job placement
to GLENDA
S. MARQUEZ without first
having secured the required
license from the Department
of Labor and Employment as
required by law, and
charged or accepted directly
or indirectly from said
complainant the amount of
Php152,670.00 as
placement/processing fee in
consideration for her
overseas employment, which
amount is in excess of or
greater than that specified in
the schedule of allowable
fees prescribed by the POEA,
and without valid reasons
failed to actually deploy her
and continuously fail to
reimburse expenses incurred
by her in connection with
her documentation and
processing for purposes of
her deployment. CAIHTE
Contrary to law. 11
Criminal Case No. 08-
265540
The undersigned
accuses EILEEN P. DAVID of
the crime of Estafa, Art. 315
par. 2 (a) of the Revised
 Penal Code, committed as solely to obtain, as in fact,
follows: she did obtain the said
amount of Php152,670.00,
That on or about and
which amount once in her
during the period comprised
possession, with intent to
between March 8, 2005 and
defraud, misappropriated,
April 20, 2007, inclusive, in
misapplied, and converted to
the City of Manila,
her own personal use and
Philippines, the said
benefit, to the damage and
accused, did then and there
prejudice of said GLENDA
willfully, unlawfully, and
S. MARQUEZ in the aforesaid
feloniously defraud GLENDA
amount of Php152,670.00,
S. MARQUEZ in the following
Philippine Currency.
manner, to wit: the said
accused, by means of false Contrary to law. 12
manifestations and
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
fraudulent representations
which she made to said On December 11, 2008, warrants
GLENDA S. MARQUEZ prior of arrest were issued against the
to and even simultaneous petitioner.
with the commission of the On April 15, 2009, petitioner filed a
fraud, to the effect that she Motion to Quash the Information 13 in
had the power and capacity Criminal Case No. 08-265540, arguing
to recruit and employ said that she was deprived of her right to seek
GLENDA S. MARQUEZ for reconsideration or reinvestigation of the
overseas employment in public prosecutor's resolution as she was
Canada as Live-in Caregiver, not furnished a copy thereof. 14 Also,
and could facilitate the petitioner argued that the City Prosecutor
processing of the pertinent of Manila had no jurisdiction over the
papers if given the case as the alleged crime was committed
necessary amount to meet in Kidapawan City. aScITE
the requirements thereof,
In an Order 15 dated May 13,
induced and succeeded in
2011 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540,
inducing the said GLENDA
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
S.MARQUEZ to give and
Branch 55, denied petitioner's Motion to
deliver, as in fact she gave
Quash, ruling that the ground relied upon
and delivered to said
by the petitioner in the said motion is not
accused the total amount of
one of those enumerated under Section
Php152,670.00, on the
3, 16 Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for
strength of said
quashing a complaint or
manifestations and
information. 17 As to the jurisdictional
representations, said
issue, the RTC ruled that it has
accused well knowing that
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
the same were false and
case, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No.
fraudulent and were made

19 | P a g e
8042 18 (RA 8042), which explicitly
states that:
A criminal action
arising from illegal
recruitment as defined
herein shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where the
offense was committed or
where the offended party
actually resides at the
time of the commission of
the offense x x GRANTED. The Order of this
x. (underscoring supplied for
emphasis) 19
Since complainant is a resident of
Manila, the RTC ruled that the second
ground interposed by the petitioner is
devoid of merit. 20 Thus:
In view of the
foregoing, the Motion to
Quash is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 21
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 22 of the said Order
alleging that she just found out that there
were two Informations filed against her,
one for Illegal Recruitment in Criminal
Case No. 08-265539 23 and another for
Estafa 24 in Criminal Case No. 08-
265540. Petitioner maintained that the
alleged crimes were committed in
Kidapawan City, not in Manila as alleged
in the Informations. Petitioner further
alleged that there is no showing that
respondent is an actual resident of Manila
but as per her Reply-Affidavit, Manila is
merely her postal address. 25 Hence,
petitioner again raised a jurisdictional
issue in the said motion. 26
20 | P a g e
In an Order 27 dated January 26,
2012, this time in Criminal Cases Nos.
08-265539-40, the RTC reconsidered its
May 13, 2011 Order, finding that it had
no jurisdiction to try the cases since the
crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
were not committed in its territory but in
Kidapawan City, thus:
WHEREFORE, in the
light of the foregoing, the
instant Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby
Court dated May 13, 2011 is
hereby RECONSIDERED and
SET ASIDE.
This case is ordered
returned to the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court for
proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 28
On the same date, the RTC also
issued an Order 29 recalling the warrants
of arrest issued against the petitioner,
thus:
Considering that this
Court has no territorial
jurisdiction over the above-
entitled cases, the Order of
this Court dated December
11, 2008, pertaining to the
issuance of Warrants of
Arrest against herein
accused is hereby cancelled
(and) set aside. DETACa
WHEREFORE, let the
Warrants of Arrest issued in
these cases be ordered
RECALLED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED. 30
 Respondent, through the public
prosecutor, then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 31 of the said Order,
averring that while it appears in the
Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) pro-forma
complaint affidavit that the alleged
recruitment activities took place in
Kidapawan City, it also appears in her
Reply-Affidavit, that she deposited certain
amounts in several banks in Manila for
the name and account of petitioner as
payments for employment processing and
placement fees. 32 Thus, part of the
essential elements of Illegal Recruitment
and Estafa took place in
Manila. 33 Section 9 of RA 8042, above-
quoted, which states that an illegal
recruitment case may also be filed with
the RTC of the province or city where the
offended party actually resides at the
time of the commission of the crime, was
likewise invoked in the said
motion. 34 Respondent averred that the
records show that at the time of the
incident up to the present, she resides in
Sampaloc, Manila. 35
Petitioner filed an Opposition 36 to
the said motion. Respondent, through the
public prosecutor, filed a right to bring a special civil action
Comment 37 thereon and a Reply 38 was
then filed by the petitioner.
In an Order 39 dated March 16,
2012, the RTC denied respondent's
motion for reconsideration, ruling that as
stated in respondent's Sinumpaang
Salaysay, the essential elements of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa took place in
Kidapawan City and not in Manila. The
allegation that several deposits for the
payment of the placement fees were
made in Manila is of no moment,
according to the RTC, considering that
the main transaction actually took place
21 | P a g e
in Kidapawan City, which is the basis for
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Thus:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the
instant Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the
Prosecution is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit.
The Orders of the Court both
dated January 26, 2012 still
stand.
SO ORDERED. 40
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Undaunted, respondent filed
a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.
In its assailed Decision, the CA
discussed, first, the issue of respondent's
legal personality to file the said petition
and second, the RTC's jurisdiction over
the case. 41
On the first issue, the CA ruled that
while it is only the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) that may represent the
People or the State in criminal
proceedings before this Court or the CA,
the private offended party retains the
for certiorari in his/her own name in
criminal proceedings before the courts of
law. 42 The CA cited Section 1, Rule 122,
which provides that the right to appeal
from a final judgment or order in a
criminal case is granted to any party
except when the accused is placed
thereby in double jeopardy. 43 It also
cited this Court's ruling that the word
party in the said provision must be
understood to mean not only the
government and the accused, but also
other persons who may be affected by
the judgment rendered in the criminal
proceeding. 44 The private complainant,
having an interest in the civil aspect of
the case, thus, may file such action in
his/her name to question the decision or
action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds. 45 In line with
this, the CA also ruled that there is no
double jeopardy in this case as the
charges were dismissed upon motion of
the petitioner-accused. 46
As to the issue on jurisdiction, the
CA ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa, citing Section 9 of RA 8042, which
provides that a criminal action arising
from illegal recruitment may be filed in
the place where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense. 47According
to the CA, it was established that herein
respondent was residing in Sampaloc,
Manila at the time of the commission of
the crimes. 48 Therefore, the two (2)
Informations herein were correctly filed
with the RTC of Manila, pursuant to
Section 9 of RA 8042. 49 The CA
disposed, thus: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, the
petition
for certiorari is GRANTED.
The assailed Order dated
January 26, 2012
and Resolution dated March
16, 2012 of the RTC, Manila,
in Criminal Case No. 08-
265539 for estafa and
Criminal Case No. 08-
265540
for illegal recruitment respec
tively, are NULLIFIED and
SET ASIDE. The cases
areREINSTATED and
REMANDED to the court of
22 | P a g e
origin for appropriate
proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 50
Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was denied by the CA in
its Resolution dated November 6, 2013,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the Mo
tion for
Reconsideration is DENIED f
or lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 51
Hence, this Petition.
Petitioner argues that the CA
committed a reversible error and grave
abuse of discretion in declaring that the
respondent had the legal personality to
assail the dismissal of the criminal cases
as respondent is not the proper party to
do so. 52 Petitioner argues that the OSG
is the appellate counsel of the People of
the Philippines in all criminal cases and as
such, the appeal in the criminal aspect
should be taken solely by the State and
the private complainant is limited only to
the appeal of the civil
aspect.53 According to the petitioner,
respondent's action before the CA does
not concern the civil aspect of the case
but the validity of the RTC's Orders. 54
On the jurisdictional issue, the
petitioner maintains that the RTC of
Manila has no jurisdiction over the cases
as the alleged acts constituting the
crimes charged were committed in
Kidapawan City and not in Manila. 55
For her part, respondent argues
that the argument as regards her legal
personality in filing the petition for
certiorari before the CA reveals that
petitioner misunderstood the difference
between an appeal and a special civil The Court's Ruling
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
The issues shall be discussed ad
the Rules of Court. 56 In fact, respondent
seriatim.
agrees with the petitioner that only the
State, through the OSG, may file an The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction
appeal in a criminal case. 57 As an over the
appeal is not available for a private cases of Illegal Recruitment and
complainant in a criminal case, an Estafa
independent action through a petition Indeed, venue in criminal cases is
for certiorari under Rule 65, therefore, is an essential element of
available to the said aggrieved party. 58 jurisdiction. 62 As explained by this Court
Anent the jurisdictional issue, in the case of Foz, Jr. v. People: 63
respondent again invokes Section 9 of RA It is a fundamental
8042 which allows the filing of an action rule that for jurisdiction to
arising from illegal recruitment with the be acquired by courts in
RTC of the complainant's criminal cases, the offense
residence. 59 The respondent further should have been committed
argues that as regards the charge of or any one of its essential
Estafa, considering that the same arose ingredients took place within
from the illegal recruitment activities, the the territorial jurisdiction of
said provision allows the filing thereof the court. Territorial
with the court of the same place where jurisdiction in criminal cases
the Illegal Recruitment case was is the territory where the
filed. 60 Besides, according to the court has jurisdiction to take
respondent, since one of the essential cognizance or to try the
elements of Estafa, i.e., damage or offense allegedly committed
prejudice to the offended party, took therein by the accused. Thus
place in Manila, as the offended party it cannot take jurisdiction
resides in Manila, the RTC of Manila has over a person charged with
jurisdiction over the Estafa an offense allegedly
case. 61 aDSIHc committed outside of that
Issues limited
territory. Furthermore, the
1) Does the RTC of Manila
jurisdiction of a court
have jurisdiction over
over a criminal case is
the cases of Illegal
determined by the
Recruitment and
allegations in the
Estafa?
complaint or information.
2) Does the respondent, on And once it is so shown,
her own, have legal the court may validly take
personality to file cognizance of the case.
the petition for However, if the evidence
certiorari before the adduced during the trial
CA? show that the offense
23 | P a g e
 was committed
somewhere else, the
court should dismiss the
action for want of
jurisdiction. 64 (emphasis
ours)
Section 15 (a), Rule 110 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 15. Place where
action is to be instituted. —
a) Subject to existing
laws, the criminal action
shall be instituted and tried
in the court of the
municipality or territory
where the offense was
committed or where any of
its essential ingredients
occurred. (emphasis ours)
At the risk of being repetitive, Sec.
9 of RA 8042, however, fixed an
alternative venue from that provided in
Section 15 (a) of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, i.e., a criminal action arising
from illegal recruitment may also be filed
where the offended party actually resides
at the time of the commission of the
offense and that the court where the
criminal action is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other
courts. 65
Despite the clear provision of the
law, the RTC of Manila declared that it
has no jurisdiction to try the cases as the
Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not
committed in its territory but in
Kidapawan City. 66
We are, thus, one with the CA in
finding that the RTC of Manila committed
grave abuse of discretion and in fact, a
palpable error, in ordering the quashal of
the Informations. The express provision
of the law is clear that the filing of
24 | P a g e
criminal actions arising from illegal
recruitment before the RTC of the
province or city where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense is allowed. It
goes without saying that the dismissal of
the case on a wrong ground, indeed,
deprived the prosecution, as well as the
respondent as complainant, of their day
in court. ATICcS
It has been found by both the RTC
and the CA that the respondent resides in
Manila; hence, the filing of the case
before the RTC of Manila was proper.
Thus, the trial court should have taken
cognizance of the case, and if it will
eventually be shown during trial that the
offense was committed somewhere else,
then the court should dismiss the action
for want of jurisdiction. 67 As a matter of
fact, the RTC is not unaware of the
above-cited provision which allows the
filing of the said case before the RTC of
the city where the offended party resides
at the time of the commission of the
offense; hence, it originally denied
petitioner's Motion to Quash. This Court
is, thus, baffled by the fact that the RTC
reversed itself upon the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration on the same
ground that it previously invalidated.
Likewise, with the case of Estafa
arising from such illegal recruitment
activities, the outright dismissal thereof
due to lack of jurisdiction was not proper,
considering that as per the allegations in
the Information, the same was within the
jurisdiction of Manila. During the
preliminary investigation of the cases,
respondent even presented evidence that
some of the essential elements of the
crime were committed within Manila, such
as the payment of processing and/or
placement fees, considering that these
were deposited in certain banks located in
Manila. 68 Thus, it bears stressing that
the trial court should have proceeded to
take cognizance of the case, and if during
the trial it was proven that the offense
was committed somewhere else, that is
the time that the trial court should
dismiss the case for want of
jurisdiction. 69
Undoubtedly, such erroneous
outright dismissal of the case is a nullity
for want of due process. The prosecution
and the respondent as the private
offended party were not given the
opportunity to present and prosecute
their case. Indeed, the prosecution and
the private offended party are as much
entitled to due process as the accused in
a criminal case. 70
The respondent has the legal
personality
to file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
This procedural issue is not novel.
There is no question that, generally, the
prosecution cannot appeal or bring error
proceedings from a judgment rendered in
favor of the defendant in a criminal case
due to the final and executory nature of a
judgment of acquittal and the
constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy. 71 Despite acquittal, however,
the offended party or the accused may
appeal, but only with respect to the civil
aspect of the decision. 72
This Court has also entertained
petitions for certiorari questioning the
acquittal of the accused in, or the
dismissal of, criminal cases upon clear
showing that the lower court, in
acquitting the accused, committed not
merely errors of judgment but also grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
25 | P a g e
excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due
process, thus rendering the assailed
judgment void. 73 When the order of
dismissal is annulled or set aside by an
appellate court in an original special civil
action viacertiorari, the right of the
accused against double jeopardy is not
violated. 74
In as early as the 1989 case
of People v. Santiago, 75 this Court has
ruled that a private offended party can
file a special civil action
for certiorari questioning the trial court's
order acquitting the accused or
dismissing the case, viz.: ETHIDa
In such special civil
action for certiorari filed
under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, wherein it is
alleged that the trial court
committed a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictional grounds, the
rules state that the petition
may be filed by the person
aggrieved. In such case, the
aggrieved parties are the
State and the private
offended party or
complainant. The
complainant has an interest
in the civil aspect of the case
so he/she may file such
special civil action
questioning the decision or
action of the respondent
court on jurisdictional
grounds. In so doing,
complainant should not
bring the action in the
name of the People of
Philippines. The action
may be prosecuted in the
 name of said
complainant. (emphasis
supplied)
Moreover, there have been
occasions when this Court has allowed
the offended party to pursue the criminal
action on his/her own behalf, as when
there is a denial of due process as in this
case. 76 Indeed, the right of offended
parties to appeal or question an order of
the trial court which deprives them of due
process has always been recognized, the
only limitation being that they cannot
appeal any adverse ruling if to do so
would place the accused in double
jeopardy. 77
At this juncture, We also uphold
the CA's finding that double jeopardy
does not exist in this case. Inasmuch as
the dismissal of the charges by the RTC
was done without regard to due process
of law, the same is null and void. 78 It is
as if there was no acquittal or dismissal
of the case at all, and the same cannot
constitute a claim for double jeopardy. 79
Also, it is elementary that double
jeopardy attaches only when the
following elements concur: (1) the
accused is charged under a complaint or
information sufficient in form and
substance to sustain their conviction; (2)
the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused
has been arraigned and has pleaded; and
(4) he/she is convicted or acquitted, or
the case is dismissed without his/her
consent. 80 Thus, as found by the CA,
double jeopardy does not attach in this
case as the dismissal was granted upon
motion of the petitioner. To be sure, no
fundamental right of the petitioner was
violated in the filing of the petition
for certiorari before the CA by the
26 | P a g e
respondent, as well as the grant thereof
by the CA.
In fine, the dismissal of the cases
below was patently erroneous and as
such, invalid for lack of fundamental
requisite, that is, due process. 81 For this
reason, this Court finds the recourse of
the respondent to the CA proper despite
it being brought on her own and not
through the OSG. TIADCc
Besides, such technicality cannot
prevail over the more fundamental
matter, which is the violation of the right
to due process resulting from the RTC's
patent error. Nothing is more settled than
the principle that rules of procedure are
meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and
orderly conduct of proceedings. 82 Strict
adherence thereto must not get in the
way of achieving substantial
justice. 83 As long as their purpose is
sufficiently met and no violation of due
process and fair play takes place, the
rules should be liberally
construed. 84 Liberal construction of the
rules is the controlling principle to effect
substantial justice. 85 The relaxation or
suspension of procedural rules, or the
exemption of a case from their operation,
is warranted when compelling reasons or
when the purpose of justice requires
it. 86 Thus, litigations should, as much as
possible, be decided on their merits and
not on sheer technicalities. 87
In all, since it is established that
the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over
the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases,
and there being no violation of the double
jeopardy doctrine, the prosecution of the
case may still resume in the trial court as
held by the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant petition
is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, ||| (David v. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859,
2013 and Resolution dated November 6, [June 5, 2017])
2013 of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin,
Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

16.SEC. 3. Grounds. — The accused may

move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following
grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not
constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
(c) That the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do
so;
(d) That the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do
so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially
to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by
law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if
true, would constitute a legal excuse
or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express
consent
27 | P a g e