FRANCISCO O. YASA, PETITIONER, VS. MARY JEAN CHAVEZ AND BEBERLY HOYUMPA CUASITO, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Yasa versus Chavez

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Francisco Yasa against Mary Jean Chavez, Beberly Hoyumpa Cuasito, and the People of the Philippines. Francisco, the private complainant in three criminal cases for libel in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, asks the Supreme Court to overturn the acquittal of the two accused, which was brought about by the grant of their demurrer to evidence. The case matters because it gathers in one place the two great barriers that stand between a disappointed complainant and a criminal acquittal: the exclusive authority of the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the People on appeal, and the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Procedural History

Three Informations for libel in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were filed against Mary Jean Chavez and Beberly Cuasito before Branch 258 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment, and trial followed. The prosecution presented Emelita dela Cruz and Francisco himself, then rested its case and formally offered its evidence. The accused then filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court.

In a Resolution dated August 10, 2023, the Regional Trial Court granted the demurrer and acquitted both accused, finding that there was no competent or sufficient proof to convict them. Francisco went up to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright in a Resolution dated October 13, 2023, because Francisco had failed to file a motion for reconsideration and because he had no authority to appeal an acquittal. His motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 14, 2024. Francisco then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On or about June 28, 2020, public Facebook posts carried a Notice of the First Division of the Supreme Court in a case involving Francisco Yasa. Mary Jean Chavez posted comments on the public Facebook post of Ma Grethel Rufa, also known as Thel Lopez, and on the public Facebook post of Marivic Bautista, also known as Mavic Bautista. Her comments included the lines "HARASS PA MORE" and statements about many people having been harassed in Vishay, and that she might post the letters of those who had been harassed. Beberly Cuasito likewise commented on the public Facebook post of Marivic Bautista, with a remark that someone's livelihood would be lost because of the number of people he had frightened.

The Informations alleged that these comments did not merely react to the Notice as an original post but created a new defamatory story or statement against Francisco, foreign and unrelated to the short contents of the Notice, and that they were a public and malicious imputation of a crime, a vice, or a defect that tended to defame his reputation and expose him to public hatred, dishonor, discredit, contempt, and ridicule.

At trial, Emelita dela Cruz testified that the accused were her co-workers at Vishay Philippines, Incorporated and officers of their union, and that she informed Francisco of the posts. On cross-examination, she admitted that she had been suspended for six months by the company, that Francisco, her close friend, had been terminated in 2011, and that Francisco had filed libel and unjust vexation cases against union officers which were dismissed. She also admitted that no name was identified in the comments subject of the cases. Francisco testified that he filed the cases to protect his reputation and to stop the spread of accusations against him. The trial court found the electronic evidence incomplete and unauthenticated, and on that ground granted the demurrer and acquitted the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the private complainant may, without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General, seek the review of a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
• Whether or not the grant of a demurrer to evidence resulting in acquittal may be reviewed on appeal where the accused's right against double jeopardy has already attached.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

SECTION 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, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. 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 a lawyer. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.

This is the provision that vests in the Office of the Solicitor General alone the authority to represent the People in criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and it is the ground on which Francisco's petition fails.

Section 21, Article III of the Constitution provides:

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

This is the constitutional protection that attaches upon the grant of the demurrer to evidence, and it bars any further review of the acquittal absent grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be denied outright. In the appeal of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General. The rationale is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant. The private offended party may appeal without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General only with respect to the civil aspect of the case. Here, Francisco did not discuss the civil liability of the accused; his arguments focused entirely on the sufficiency of the evidence to establish their guilt. His only intention was to challenge the acquittal, which is not permissible.

On the second issue, the Court stressed that the grant of the demurrer to evidence constitutes a judgment on the merits and is equivalent to an acquittal. An order granting a demurrer and acquitting the accused on the ground of insufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed, as doing so would violate the right against double jeopardy. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. Thus, in resolving the accused's demurrer to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt. The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. This constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.

Given the far-reaching scope of the right against double jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no showing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion, such as when the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case, or the trial was a sham. Here, the prosecution was able to present its evidence and formally offer it. The trial court judiciously and extensively examined that evidence and concluded that it was incomplete and unauthenticated. Even if there was an error in that evaluation, the error of judgment could not be rectified by a petition for review on certiorari, because double jeopardy had already set in.

Doctrine

First, in criminal cases, the authority to represent the People on appeal before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court belongs exclusively to the Office of the Solicitor General under Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987. The private complainant's interest is limited to the civil liability, and the complainant may appeal only the civil aspect despite an acquittal.

Second, the grant of a demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits equivalent to an acquittal, and it may not be reviewed without violating the right against double jeopardy under Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. The only exception is grave abuse of discretion, such as the denial of the prosecution's opportunity to present its case or a sham trial. A mere error in the appreciation of evidence is not grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 13, 2023 and May 14, 2024 were affirmed; the acquittal of Mary Jean Chavez and Beberly Cuasito stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: only the Office of the Solicitor General may appeal a criminal acquittal, and the grant of a demurrer to evidence is an acquittal protected by double jeopardy. Examiners use this case to test the private complainant's limited role in criminal appeals and the grave abuse of discretion exception to double jeopardy.