FRANCIS RAYMOND C. DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. KEVIN NARCE B. VIVERO AND SPOUSES NENITA A. MENDEZ AND DANILO MENDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

De Guzman versus Vivero

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Francis Raymond C. De Guzman against Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero and the spouses Nenita and Danilo Mendez. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to nullify two orders of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71 — an order dated 14 January 2014 and an order dated 23 October 2014 — which granted a demurrer to evidence in favor of the respondent spouses and dismissed the criminal case for estafa against them. The petitioner's central complaint is that the trial court prematurely granted the demurrer, because what the spouses actually filed was only a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, and not the proper demurrer itself. The case matters far beyond its own facts: it is a clean lesson on who may speak for the People of the Philippines in a criminal case, and on the consequences of filing a petition with the Supreme Court without the Solicitor General.

Procedural History

The criminal case for estafa was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71, presided over by the respondent judge. In that case, the respondent spouses filed a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. The trial court issued an order dated 14 January 2014 granting the demurrer in favor of the spouses, and a subsequent order dated 23 October 2014 dismissing the estafa case. From these orders, the petitioner, the private complainant, went directly to the Supreme Court by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The petition was filed without the participation or representation of the Solicitor General.

Facts

A criminal case for estafa was filed against the spouses Nenita and Danilo Mendez, with Francis Raymond C. De Guzman as the private complainant. The case was assigned to the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71, presided over by Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero.

During the proceedings, the respondent spouses filed a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. The trial court then issued an order dated 14 January 2014 granting the demurrer to evidence in favor of the spouses, and an order dated 23 October 2014 dismissing the estafa case.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, insisting that the trial court acted prematurely because no proper demurrer to evidence had been filed, only a motion for leave. The petition, however, carried defects in its verification and certification against forum shopping, and in the notary's compliance with the notarial rules. More importantly, it was filed by the private complainant alone, without the Solicitor General.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition may be entertained despite the deficiencies in its verification and certification against forum shopping and in the notarial acknowledgment.
• Whether or not the private complainant, without the Solicitor General, has the legal personality or standing to question, by certiorari, the trial court's orders dismissing the criminal case on the criminal aspect.

Applicable Provisions

Section 35, paragraph 1, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, as quoted in the decision through the Bautista versus Cuneta-Pangilinan ruling, provides:

The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, 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. The OSG is the law office of the Government.

This provision is the anchor of the ruling: it vests in the Solicitor General alone the authority to represent the State in criminal proceedings, including appeals and actions on the criminal aspect.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, 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 provide that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved.

The Court used this to identify the aggrieved parties — the State and the private offended party — but then limited the private complainant's role to the civil aspect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the petition bore two noted deficiencies. First, the verification, certification of non-forum shopping, affidavit of service, and explanation failed to comply with Sections 6 and 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended, because there was no properly accomplished jurat — there was no showing that the affiant exhibited before the notary public competent evidence of his identity, meaning at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing his photograph and signature. Second, the notary public failed to indicate the serial number of the commission, the office address, and the place of commission, as required by Section 2, paragraphs b and c, Rule VIII of the same Rules. The Court, however, chose to go further and said that even if it turned a blind eye to these deficiencies, the petition should still be outrightly dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner took a procedural misstep when he filed the petition without the representation of the Solicitor General. The Court laid down the rule that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant is limited to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court, or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal, and the private offended party may not take such appeal — although the private offended party may appeal the civil aspect despite an acquittal whenever warranted by the circumstances.

The Court acknowledged that in a special civil action for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65, the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved, and that the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party. But it stressed that what was assailed in this petition was the criminal, not the civil, aspect of the trial court's orders. Therefore, the petition should have been filed only by the Solicitor General. The private offended party lacked the personality or legal standing to question the trial court's orders, because it is only the Solicitor General who can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings before the Court.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General, which is the law office of the Government under Section 35, paragraph 1, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. Second, in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the private complainant's interest is limited to the civil liability; in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant is merely a witness for the prosecution. Third, if a criminal case is dismissed or the accused is acquitted, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General; the private complainant may not take that appeal, but may appeal the civil aspect despite an acquittal whenever warranted. Fourth, while a petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 may be filed by the person aggrieved — the State and the private offended party — where what is assailed is the criminal aspect of the trial court's orders, only the Solicitor General has the personality to file it. Finally, a verification and certification that fails to show competent evidence of identity before the notary, and a notarial acknowledgment that omits the commission serial number, office address, and place of commission, violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed outright, and the trial court's orders granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the estafa case stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on the criminal aspect, and the private complainant may appeal only the civil aspect. Examiners use this case to test the private complainant's lack of standing in a Rule 65 petition attacking the criminal aspect, and the requirements of a valid jurat under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.