Tan v. Gallardo

9/11/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME073
306
SUPREMECOURTREPORTANNOTATED
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
*
Nos.L4121314.October5,1976.
JORGEP.TAN,JR.,CESARTAN,LIBRADOSODE,TEOFANIS
BONJOC, OSMUNDO TOLENTINO and MARIANO BARTIDO,
petitioners, vs. JUDGE PEDRO GALLARDO, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Circuit Criminal Court, 13th Judicial District,
TaclobanCity,andPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
Criminal procedure Prosecution of offenses Prosecution officer, as
representative of State, with control and direction of and responsibility for
prosecution.Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of
the State, it is but natural that the representatives of the State should direct
and control the prosecution. The prosecuting officer is the representative
not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
obligationtogovernimpartiallyisascompellingasitsobligationtogovern
at all and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar
and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is
that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with
earnestness and vigorindeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike
hardblows,heisnotatlibertytostrikefoulones.Itisasmuchhisdutyto
refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction
asitistouseeverylegitimatemeanstobringaboutajustone.
Same Same Prime duty of prosecuting officer to see to it that the
innocentmaynotsufferandtheguiltymaynotescapeunpunished.Thereis
an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay before the court the
pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention,
clarifyingcontradictionsandfillingupgapsandloopholesintheirevidence,
totheendthatcourtsmindmaynotbetorturedbydoubts,thattheinnocent
maynotsufferandtheguiltynotescapeunpunished.Obvioustoall,thisis
theprosecutionsprimedutytothecourt,totheaccused,andtothestate.It
is for the purpose of realizing these objectives that the prosecution of
offenses is placed under the direction, control, and responsibility of the
prosecutingofficer.
Same Same Intervention of offended party in criminal action
Interventionofoffendedparty,personallyorbyattorney,forthesole
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/13
9/11/2016
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION
307
VOL.73,OCTOBER5,1976
307
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
purposeofenforcingcivilliabilityforcriminalactionandnotofdemanding
punishment of accused Exceptions.The role of the private prosecutors is
to represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for the
recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. This civil action is
deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party either
expresslywaivesthecivilactionorreservestoinstituteitseparately.Thus,
an offended party may intervene in the proceedings, personally or by
attorney, specially in case of offenses which cannot be prosecuted except at
theinstanceoftheoffendedparty.Theonlyexceptionstothisarewhenthe
offendedpartywaiveshisrighttocivilactionorexpresslyreserveshisright
to institute it after the termination of the case, in which case he loses his
righttointerveneuponthetheorythatheisdeemedtohavelosthisinterest
initsprosecution.
Same Same Same Offended party may not intervene in prosecution
where from nature of offense or where law defining and punishing offense
charged does not provide for indemnity.Where from the nature of the
offense, or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does
not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the
prosecutionoftheoffense.
Same Same Same Intervention of offended party subject to control
anddirectionofprosecutingofficer.Whetheranoffendedpartyintervenes
in the prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention must always be
subjecttothedirectionandcontroloftheprosecutingofficial.Asexplained
inHerrerovs.Diaz,(75Phil.489)theinterventionoftheoffendedpartyof
his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court,
subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecutedunderthedirectionandcontroloftheFiscal.
Same Same Same Offended party cannot take a stand inconsistent
withprosecutingofficer.Since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to
representtheStateorthePeopleofthePhilippinestheinterestoftheprivate
prosecutorsissubordinatetothatoftheStateandtheycannotbeallowedto
takeastandinconsistentwiththatoftheSolicitorGeneral,forthatwouldbe
tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal
2/13
9/11/2016
proceedings, contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the
matter.
Solicitor General Solicitor General represents Government in the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.The
SolicitorGeneralrepresentsthePeopleofthe
308
308
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings pending either in the Court

ofAppealsorintheSupremeCourt.
Courts Purpose of.The sole purpose of courts of justice is to
enforcethelawsuniformlyandimpartiallywithoutregardtopersonsortheir
circumstancesortheopinionsofmen.
JudgesDuty of judges to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent.A judge, according to Justice Castro, now Chief Justice of
this Court, should strive to be at all times wholly free, disinterested,
impartialandindependent.Elementarydueprocessrequiresahearingbefore
an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duty of
renderingajustdecisionandthedutyofdoingitinamannercompletelyfree
fromsuspicionastoitsfairnessandastohisintegrity.Thus,ithasalways
beenstressedthatjudgesshouldnotonlybeimpartialbutshouldalsoappear
impartial, for impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of
mind and, consequently, the appearance of impartiality is an essential
manifestationofitsreality.Itmustbeobvious,therefore,thatwhilejudges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently
construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should act and
behaveinsuchamannerthatthepartiesbeforethemshouldhaveconfidence
intheirimpartiality.
ORIGINALACTIONforcertiorariandprohibition.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt
Pelaez,Jalandoni&AdrianoforpetitionerJorgeP.Tan,Jr.
K.V.Faylona&AssociatesforpetitionerCesarTan.
RupertoKapunan,Jr,forpetitionerTeofanisBondoc
Amadeo Seno, Artemio Derecho & Manuel Quimbo for
petitionersLibradoIsode,Osmundo,TolentinoandMarianoBartido.
Solicitor General Estilito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
General Alicia SimpioDiy and Solicitor Eduardo L. Kilayko for
respondents.
EstanislaoA.FernandezandDakilaF.Castro&Associateas
privateprosecutors.
3/13
9/11/2016
ANTONIO,J.:
In this Special Civil Action for Certiorari with Prohibition,
petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judges Orders in
CriminalCasesNos.CCCXIII50LS72andCCCXIII51L
309
309
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
1
S72, towit:(a)OrderofJuly21,1975,denyingpetitionersmotion
forrespondentJudgetodisqualifyortoinhibithimselffromhearing
andactingupontheirMotionforNewTrialand/orReconsideration
andSupplementalMotionforNewTrial(b)OrderofJuly23,1975,
denying petitioners Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration
andSupplementalMotionforNewTrialand(c)OrderofJuly25,
1975,orderingthetransferoftheaccused(petitionersherein)from
Camp Bumpus, PC headquarters, Tacloban City, to the National
Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal. It is likewise
sought,bywayofprohibition,tocompelrespondentJudgetodesist
fromfurtherproceedingwiththeaforementionedcriminalcases.By
Resolution of this Court dated August 27, 1975, the respondent
Judge was required to file his answer within ten (10) days from
notice, and in connection therewith, a temporary restraining order
wasissuedtoenjointherespondentfromfurtherproceedingwiththe
aforementioned criminal cases. The petition was subsequently
amendedtoincludethePeopleofthePhilippinesandthereafter,on
January14,1976,theSolicitorGeneral,onbehalfofthePeopleof
thePhilippines,submittedhisCommenttothepetition.TheSolicitor
General informed this Court, thus: that they are persuaded that
there are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judges
decisionandhisresolutiononthemotionfornewtrialwerenotfree
from suspicion of bias and prejudice * * *. Considering the
circumstancesoftheinstantcase,theseriousnessofthechargesand
countercharges and the nature of the evidence on hand to support
them,wefeelthatrespondentJudgeappearedtohavebeenheedless
of the oftreiterated admonition addressed to trial judges to avoid
even the impression of the guilt or innocence of the accused being
dependentonprejudiceorprejudgmentand,therefore,itwasthe
submissionofsaidofficialthatthecaseshouldberemandedtothe
trialcourtfortherenditionofanewdecisionandwithinstructionto
receive additional evidence preferred by the accused with the right
oftheprosecutiontopresentrebuttalevidenceasmaybewarranted
and, therefore, they interpose no objection to the remand of the
aforementioned criminal cases for the rendition of a new decision
by
4/13
9/11/2016
_______________
1EntitledPeopleofthePhilippines,Plaintiff,versusJorgeP.Tan,Jr.,CesarTan,
TeofanisBonjoc,OsmundoTolentino,MarianoBartido,andLibradoSode,Accused,
forFrustratedMurderandDoubleMurder.
310
310
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
another trial judge, after the parties shall have adduced such
additionalevidenceastheymaywishtomake,undersuchtermsand
2
conditionsasthisHonorableCourtmaydeemfittoimpose.
On January 30, 1976, private prosecutors submitted their
CommentinjustificationofthechallengedOrdersoftherespondent
Judgeandobjectedtotheremandofthiscase.
On February 12, 1976, the petitioners moved to strike out the
Motion to Admit Attacked Comment and the Comment of the
private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has absolutely no
standingintheinstantproceedingsbeforethisHonorableCourtand,
hence,withoutanypersonalitytohaveanypaperofhisentertained
bythisTribunal***
The private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to
appear before this Court, to take part in the proceedings, and to
adoptapositionincontraventiontothatoftheSolicitorGeneral.
The issue before Us is whether or not the private prosecutors
have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor General
andtoadoptastandinconsistentwiththatofthelatterinthepresent
proceedings.
There are important reasons which support the view that in the
present proceedings, the private prosecutors cannot intervene
independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the
SolicitorGeneral.
Tobeginwith,itwillbenotedthattheparticipationoftheprivate
prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its
Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: to collaborate with the
SolicitorGeneralinthepreparationoftheAnswerandpleadingsthat
may berequiredby this Court. To collaborate means to cooperate
with and to assist the Solicitor General. It was never intended that
the private prosecutors could adopt a stand independent of or in
contraventionofthepositiontakenbytheSolicitorGeneral.
Thereisnoquestionthatsinceacriminaloffenseisanoutrageto
thesovereigntyoftheState,itisbutnaturalthattherepresentatives
oftheStateshoulddirectandcontroltheprosecution.Asstressedin
3
Suarez v. Platon, et al., the prosecuting officer is the
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereigntywhoseobligationto
5/13
9/11/2016
_______________
2CommentsoftheSolicitorGeneral,pp.68,Rollo,pp.295297.
369Phil.556,564565.
311
311
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
governimpartiallyisascompellingasitsobligationtogovernatall
andwhoseinterest,therefore,inacriminalprosecutionisnotthatit
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a
peculiarandverydefinitesensetheservantofthelaw,thetwofold
aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He
mayprosecutewithearnestnessandvigorindeed,heshoulddoso.
But,whilehemaystrikehardblows,heisnotatlibertytostrikefoul
ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
legitimatemeanstobringaboutajustone.Thus,itwasstressedin
4
People v. Esquivel, et al., that there is an absolute necessity for
prosecuting attorneys to lay before the court the pertinent facts at
their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying
contradictionsandfillingupgapsandloopholesintheirevidence,to
theendthatthecourtsmindmaynotbetorturedbydoubts,thatthe
innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished.
Obvious to all, this is the prosecutions prime duty to the court, to
the accused, and to the state. It is for the purpose of realizing the
aforementionedobjectivesthattheprosecutionofoffensesisplaced
under the direction, control, and responsibility of the prosecuting
officer.
The role of the private prosecutors, upon the other hand, is to
represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for the
recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. This civil
action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the
offendedpartyeitherexpresslywaivesthecivilactionorreservesto
5
instituteitseparately. Thus,anoffendedpartymayinterveneinthe
proceedings,personallyorbyattorney,speciallyincaseofoffenses
whichcannotbeprosecutedexceptattheinstanceoftheoffended
6
party. Theonlyexceptiontothisiswhentheoffendedpartywaives
hisrighttocivilactionorexpresslyreserveshisrighttoinstituteit
after the termination of the case, in which case he lost his right to
interveneuponthetheorythatheisdeemedtohavelosthisinterest
7
initsprosecution. Andinanyevent,whetheranoffendedparty
_______________
482Phil.453,459.
6/13
9/11/2016
5Peoplev.Evia,62Phil.546Tanv.StandardVacuumOilCo.,etal.,91Phil.672.
6Peoplev.Dizon,44Phil.267Herrerov.Diaz,75Phil.489.
7Peoplev.Velez,77Phil.1026Peoplev.Capistrano,90Phil.823.
312
312
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention

must always be subject
to the direction and control of the
8
prosecuting official. As explained in Herrero v. Diaz, supra, the
intervention ofthe offended partyor his attorney is authorized by
section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, subject to the
provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal. (Italics
supplied.)
Therefore,althoughtheprivateprosecutorsmaybepermittedto
intervene,theyarenotincontrolofthecase,andtheirinterestsare
subordinatetothoseofthePeopleofthePhilippinesrepresentedby
9
thefiscal. Therightwhichtheprocedurallawreservestotheinjured
partyisthatofinterveningintheprosecutionforthesolepurposeof
enforcing the civil liability for the criminal
action and not of
10
demanding
punishment of the accused. As explained in People v.
11
Orais:
***thepositionoccupiedbytheoffendedpartyissubordinatetothatof
the promoter fiscal because, as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to
represent the public prosecution, or the People of the Philippine Islands, in
the prosecution of offenders, and to control the proceeding, and as it is
discretionarywithhimtoinstituteandprosecuteacriminalproceeding,being
at liberty to commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not,
dependinguponwhetherornotthereis,inhisopinion,sufficientevidenceto
establishtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondareasonabledoubt,exceptwhenthe
case is pending in the Court of First Instance, the continuation of the
offended partys intervention depends upon the continuation of the
proceeding. Consequently, if the promotor fiscal desists from pressing the
charge or asks the competent Court of First Instance in which the case is
pending for the dismissal thereof, and said court grants the petition, the
intervention of the person injured by the commission of the offense ceases
by virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the
principal.Consequently,astheoffendedpartyisnotentitledtorepresentthe
PeopleofthePhilippineIslandsintheprosecutionofapublicoffense,orto
controltheproceedingonceitiscommenced,andashisright
_______________
7/13
9/11/2016
8LimTekGoanv.Yatco,etc.,94Phil.197,200.Italicssupplied.
9Leriomv.Cruz,87Phil.652.
10Peoplev.Maceda,73Phil.679.
1165Phil.744,746747Gonzalesv.CourtoffirstInstance,63Phil.846,855856.
313
313
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscals right of control, it

cannot be stated that an order of dismissal decreed upon petition of the
promotor fiscal himself deprives the offended party of his right to appeal
from an order overruling a complaint or information, which right belongs
exclusivelytothepromotorfiscalbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofsection44of
GeneralOrders,No.58.Topermitapersoninjuredbythecommissionofan
offensetoappealfromanorderdismissingacriminalcaseissuedbyaCourt
of First Instance upon petition of the promotor fiscal, would be tantamount
to giving said offended party of the direction and control of a criminal
proceeding in violation of the provisions of the abovecited section 107 of
GeneralOrders,No.58.
Consequently, where from the nature of the offense, or where the

lawdefiningandpunishingtheoffensechargeddoesnotprovidefor
an indemnity, the offended
party may not intervene in the
12
prosecutionoftheoffense.
There is no question that the Solicitor General represents the
People of the Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings
pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. Thus,
Section1ofPresidentialDecreeNo.478,DefiningthePowersand
FunctionsoftheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,provides:
SECTION 1. Function and Organization. (1) 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,
investigationormatterrequiringtheservicesofalawyer.***Theofficeof
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
havethefollowingspecificpowersandfunctions:
(a) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings represent the Government and
its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all
othercourtsortribunalsinallcivilactionsandspecialproceedings
in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official
capacityistheparty.
*********
8/13
9/11/2016
Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court,
(k) tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding
which,inhisopinion,affectsthewelfareofthepeopleastheends
ofjusticemayrequire.
*********
_______________
12Peoplev.Maceda,supra.
314
314
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is

authorizedtorepresenttheStateorthePeopleofthePhilippinesthe
interestoftheprivateprosecutorsissubordinatetothatoftheState
andtheycannotbeallowedtotakeastandinconsistentwiththatof
the Solicitor General, for that would be tantamount to giving the
latterthedirectionandcontrolofthecriminalproceedings,contrary
totheprovisionsoflawandthesettledrulesonthematter.
Moreover, the position taken by the Solicitor General in
recommending the remand of the case to the trial court is not
without any plausible justification. Thus, in support of his
contentionthattherenditionofthedecisionandtheresolutiononthe
subsequent motions by the respondent Judge were not free from
suspicionofbiasandprejudice,theSolicitorGeneralstated:
In alleging bias and manifest partiality on the part of respondent judge,
petitionersassertthat:
(a) Respondent judge kept improper contact with and was illegally
influencedbytheLarrazabalsinconnectionwiththedecisionofthe
twocasesagainstpetitionersherein
(b) In the latter part of 1973, with the trial of the Tan cases still in
progress, respondent judge received, through one of his court
stenographers,twobottlesofwhiskyfromMayorIakiLarrazabal,
brother and uncle of the deceased victims Feliciano and Francisco
Larrazabal
(c) Ononeoccasion,MayorLarrazabalhadashorttalkwithrespondent
judge, after which the latter received from one of the private
prosecutors a bottle of wine wrapped in a newspaper which was
thick and bulky and which allegedly contained something else
inside
(d) Respondent judge prepared the decision in the Tan cases based on
the memorandum of the prosecution which was literally copied in
9/13
9/11/2016
saiddecisionalthoughwithsomecorrectionsand
(e) After an alleged meeting with Mayor Iaki Larrazabal, respondent
judge amended his already prepared decision in the two criminal
cases involved herein by changing the penalty of doublelife
sentenceforthedoublemurderchargeagainstthepetitionerstothe
deathpenalty.
Theforegoingallegedirregularitiesaremainlysupportedbyanaffidavit
executedonJune26,1975byGerardoA.Makinano,Jr.,courtstenographer
of the Circuit Criminal Court, Tacloban City (Annex E, Petition). The
truth of the charges made in such affidavit are denied by respondent judge
(in his answer to the instant petition dated October 11, 1975), who in turn
claimsthatitwaspetitioners
315
315
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
who tried to bribe him into acquitting them in the aforesaid criminal cases,
after they were illegally furnished a copy of the draft of his decision of
convictionbythesamecourtstenographerGerardoA.Makinano,Jr.(please
see Answer of respondent judge, pp. 1213). Unlike in the cases of Mateo
vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 191 (1973), and Castillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 124
(1974) relied upon mainly by herein petitioners, the facts alleged as
constitutingthegroundsfordisqualifyingtherespondentjudgeintheinstant
petitionaredisputed.
ApartfromtheswornstatementssubmittedbeforethisCourtinsupport
or in denial of the alleged bribery of respondent judge, we have been
informedofevidenceobtainedbytheNationalBureauofInvestigationwhen
it cannot appropriate for us at this time, however, and we are unable to do
so,tosubmittothisCourtdefiniteconclusionsonthechargesandcounter
charges.Anexhaustiveinquiryandopenhearingshouldperhapsprecedethe
makingofcategoricalconclusions.Butwearepersuadedthattherearebases
for stating that the rendition of respondent Judges decision and his
resolutionsonthemotionsfornewtrialwerenotfreefromsuspicionofbias
andprejudice(SeeMartinezvs.Gironella,65SCRA245[July22,1975]).
Consideringthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,theseriousnessofthe
charges and countercharges and the nature of the evidence on hand to
supportthem,wefeelthatrespondentJudgeappearedtohavebeenheedless
to the oftreiterated admonition addressed to trial judges to avoid even the
impression of the guilt or innocence of the accused being dependent on
prejudice or prejudgment (Fernando, J., Concurring opinion, Martinez vs.
Gironella,supra,at252.***
Itisundisputedthatthesolepurposeofcourtsofjusticeistoenforce
thelawsuniformlyandimpartiallywithoutregardtopersonsortheir
circumstancesortheopinionsofmen.Ajudge,accordingtoJustice
10/13
9/11/2016
Castro, now Chief Justice of this Court, should strive to be at all

times wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.
Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and
disinterestedtribunal.Ajudgehasboththedutyofrenderingajust
decisionandthedutyofdoingitinamannercompletelyfreefrom
13
suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. Thus, it has
always been stressed that judges should not only be impartial but
should also appear impartial. For
impartiality is not a technical
14
conception.Itisastateofmind and,consequently,the
_______________
13Geotinav.Gonzales,41SCRA66.
14U.S.v.Wood,299U.S.123,245.
316
316
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
appearance
of impartiality is an essential manifestation of its
15
reality. It must be obvious, therefore, that while judges should
possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently
construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should
actandbehaveinsuchamannerthatthepartiesbeforethemshould
haveconfidenceintheirimpartiality.
It appears, however, that respondent Judge is no longer in the
judicialservice,hence,thequestionastowhetherornotheshould
be disqualified from further proceeding with the aforementioned
criminalcaseshasalreadybecomemoot.
WHEREFORE, this Court grants the petition and hereby
remandsthecasetothetrialcourtinorderthatanotherJudgemay
hearanewpetitionersmotionfornewtrialandtoresolvetheissue
accordinglyonthebasisoftheevidence.Nospecialpronouncement
astocosts.
Fernando,(Chairman),Barredo,Aquino, and Concepcion
Jr.JJ.,concur.
Petitiongranted.
Notes. a) Functions performed by fiscal basically executive.
Whileitistruethatafiscalinexercisinghisdiscretionastowhether
or not to prosecute somebody for an offense performs a quasi
judicial act, the functions that he discharges as an officer of the
government are basically executive. He belongs to the executive
departmentratherthantothejudiciary.Ifindeed,insomeinstances,
his salary is paid by the corresponding local governments, he does
11/13
9/11/2016
nottherebybecomeapartthereof,forheisalwayswithintheambit
of the national authority when it comes to the supervision and
control of his office, powers and functions (Noblejas vs. Salas, L
31792,September15,1975).
b) Interventionofoffendedparty.Whilecriminalactionsasa
rule are prosecuted under the direction and control of the
fiscal however, an offended party may intervene in the
proceeding,personallyorbyattorney,speciallyincasesof
offenseswhichcannotbeprosecutedexceptattheinstance
of the offended party. The only exception to this rule is
whentheoffendedpartywaiveshisrighttocivilactionor
expressly reserves his right to institute it after the
terminationofthe
_______________
15Dennisv.UnitedStates,339U.S.162,182.
317
317
Tan,Jr.vs.Gallardo
case,inwhichcaseheloseshisrighttointerveneuponthe
theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its
prosecution. And in any event, whether an offended party
intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action, his
intervention must always be subject to the direction and
controloftheprosecutingofficial.(LimTekGoanvs.Yatco,
94Phil.197,200).
c) Prosecution of criminal actions by fiscal.The right to
appeal from an order of dismissal granted by the court on
motion of the fiscal may now be challenged under the
theorythattherightofanoffendedpartytointerveneina
criminalactionissubjecttothefiscalsrightofcontrol.To
permitanoffendedpartytoappealfromanorderdismissing
a criminal case upon a petition of the fiscal would be
tantamount to giving said party as much right to the
directionandcontrolofacriminalproceedingasthatofthe
fiscal.(Peoplevs.Liggayu,97Phil.865)
o0o
318
12/13
9/11/2016
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
13/13

Tan v. Gallardo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan v. Gallardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/11/2016

Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings pending either in the Court

intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention

to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscals right of control, it

Consequently, where from the nature of the offense, or where the

It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is

Castro, now Chief Justice of this Court, should strive to be at all

You might also like