ONG VS GENIO

TOPIC: IMPROVIDENT PLEA: REMAND AND RE-ARRAIGNMENT ISSUE: Whether the petitioner has a personality to elevate the case
WHEN PROPER to CA without conformity of the OSG.

DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the RULING: NONE.

offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant
is limited to the civil liability. The private offended party or RATIO: Sec. 35 (1) Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative
complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended Code of 1987 states that the OSG shall represent the Government of
party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the the Philippines and likewise represent the Government in SC and
acquittal of the accused. the CA in criminal proceedings. It was settled in jurisprudence that
only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic
FACTS: Petitioner Elvira Ong filed a criminal complaint against or represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings
respondent Jose Genio for Robbery which was dismissed by the City pending in SC and CA. While there may be rare occasions when the
Prosecutor of Makati. However, the Department of Justice charged offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his
respondent with the crime of Robbery. Respondent filed a Motion own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process, this
to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Probable Cause pursuant to Sec. 6(a) exceptional circumstance does not obtain in the instant case.
of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The RTC of Makati dismissed the
case the information filed lacked the elements of intent to gain and Petitioner, however, is not without any recourse. In Rodriguez, vs
violence. Despite dismissal of the case, respondent filed a Partial Gadiance:
Motion for Reconsideration reiterating that the Information should
“It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is
be dismissed in its entirety for lack of probable cause. RTC granted
the State, the interest of the private complainant is limited to the
respondent’s motion as it held that the evidence on record failed to
civil liability. The private offended party or complainant may not
establish probable cause. Petitioner filed a Motion for
take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant
Reconsideration claiming that the RTC erred in its judgment. The
may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.”
RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, holding that
it was authorized to evaluate not only the resolution of the
prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation and
eventually filed the Information in court, but also the evidence on
record which the resolution was based. Petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari and mandamus before the CA. However, the CA observed
that the OSG has no participation and ordered petitioner to furnish
a copy of the Petition from the OSG. The CA rendered its resolution
dismissing the case without prejudice to the filing of a petition on
the civil aspect. Hence, this petition.