Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

DANTE LA. JIMENE vs. HON.

SORONGON of probable cause since there was no evidence to indicate respondents’


alleged crime. RTC also set aside warrants of arrest.
Recit Ready: The petitioner argues that he has a legal standing to assail the 8. Jimenez filed an MR, which the RTC denied; so Jimenez filed a notice of
dismissal of the criminal case since he is the private complainant and a real party in appeal, which Alamil moved to expunge since public prosecutor did not
interest who had been directly damaged and prejudiced by the respondents’ illegal authorize the appeal and Jimenez had not civil interest in the case. Jimenez
acts while respondents submit that the petitioner lacks a legal standing to assail the countered that he was the offended party and that TMSI’s fraudulent acts
dismissal of the criminal case since the power to prosecute lies solely with the greatly prejudiced him.
State, acting through a public prosecutor; the petitioner acted independently and 9. RTC denied notice of appeal since there was no conformity of the Solicitor
without the authority of a public prosecutor in the prosecution and appeal of the General, who is mandated to represent People of the PH in criminal
case. SC held in favor of respondents as OSG has the legal personality to represent actions appealed to the CA.
the Government and People in appeals of criminal cases. 10. Jimenez elevated the case to the CA under Rule 65, certiorari but was
denied as OSG had the legal personality to file the petition in behalf of the
Doctrine: The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the People of the PH, as provided in Sec. 35, Chap. 12 of the Administrative
Office of the Solicitor General can represent the People in criminal proceedings Code.
pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court. 11. CA also held that Jiminez was not the real party in interest to institute case
as he was not the victim of the crime, but merely a competitor in business.
Facts:
1. Jimenez was the president of UNLAD Shipping and Management Corp. Issue/s: W/N petitioner Jimenez was the real party in interest
(UNLAD), a local manning agency, while private respondents were
incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc, (TMSI), another local Held: No. Jimenez has no legal personality to assail dismissal of the criminal case.
manning agency. 1. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
2. Jimenez filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor against in interest. "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment, alleging that suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Interest means
respondents falsely represented their stockholdings in TMSI’s articles of material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or
inc. to secure license to operate from POEA. Respondents denied the judgment of the case.
allegations. 2. Procedural law mandates that all criminal actions commenced by
3. The City Prosecutor approved complaint and filed a criminal information complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
with the RTC, BUT he then reconsidered and filed a motion to withdraw control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the CA
the information. and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, as
4. RTC denied the motion to withdraw as it found existence of probable cause stated in the Administrative Code (OSG shall represent Government in the
to hold respondents for trial. Hence, RTC ordered issuance of warrants of SC and CA in all criminal proceedings.
arrest. 3. The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG
5. Respondent Alamil then filed a motion for judicial determination of can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in
probable cause with a request to defer enforcement of the warrants of this Court.
arrest, which RTC denied as it already found probable cause; also, 4. Petitioner has no legal since the main issue raised by Jimenez involved the
respondent Alamil has already voluntarily submitted to RTC’s jurisdiction criminal aspect of the case, i.e., the existence of probable cause. He did not
through filing of pleadings with affirmative reliefs. appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of the
6. Respondent Alamil filed an MR and moved for inhibition of current judge crime, but to cause the reinstatement of the criminal action against the
(Judge Umali) for being biased. Petitioner Jimenez filed an opposition and respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which pertains
motion to expunge as Alamil had no standing to seek relief as he was a exclusively to the People, as represented by the OSG.
fugitive. 5. The Court also ruled that Alamil was deemed to have submitted to the
7. Judge Umali inhibited herself and was raffled to Judge Sorongon. The RTC jurisdiction of the Court when he filed several motions before the RTC
then ruled in favor of Alamil, dismissing the complaint/information for lack seeking the dismissal of the criminal case.