RULE 110 thereof, was situated; and that consequently the filing and docket fees for

the complaint should be based on the value of the property as stated in

A. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS the certificate of sale attached thereto.

BPI vs. HONTANOSAS ISSUE: Whether or not Civil Case No. CEB-26468 should be dismissed
for (a) non-payment of the correct amount of docket fee; and (b) improper
FACTS: On May 22, 2001, respondents Spouses Silverio and Zosima Borbon, venue.
Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad, and XM Facultad and Development
Corporation commenced Civil Case No. CEB-26468 to seek the declaration of the HELD: NO.
nullity of the promissory notes, real estate and chattel mortgages and continuing
surety agreement they had executed in favor of the petitioner. They further sought The determinants of whether an action is of a real or a personal nature have been
damages and attorney’s fees, and applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) fixed by the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence. According to Section 1,
or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the petitioner from foreclosing on the Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or possession
mortgages against their properties. of real property, or an interest therein. Such action is to be commenced and tried
in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
The complaint alleged that the respondents had obtained a loan from the involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is also
petitioner, and had executed promissory notes binding themselves, jointly and referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other
severally, to pay the sum borrowed; that as security for the payment of the loan, actions as personal actions.15 Such actions may include those brought for the
they had constituted real estate mortgages on several parcels of land in favor of recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or
the petitioner; and that they had been made to sign a continuing surety agreement recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the
and a chattel mortgage on their Mitsubishi Pajero. commission of an injury to the person or property. The venue of a personal action
is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
It appears that the respondents’ obligation to the petitioner had reached the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
P17,983,191.49, but they had only been able to pay P13 Million because they had resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for
been adversely affected by the economic turmoil in Asia in 1997. The petitioner which reason the action is considered a transitory one.
required them to issue postdated checks to cover the loan under threat of
foreclosing on the mortgages. Thus, the complaint sought a TRO or a writ of Based on the aforequoted allegations of the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-
preliminary injunction to stay the threatened foreclosure. 26468, the respondents seek the nullification of the promissory notes, continuing
surety agreement, checks and mortgage agreements for being executed against
The petitioner filed its answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaim, as well their will and vitiated by irregularities, not the recovery of the possession or title
as its opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, contending to the properties burdened by the mortgages.
that the foreclosure of the mortgages was within its legal right to do.
Well-settled is the rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss reiterating its affirmative defenses, to wit: real estate mortgage is a personal action.
I) THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE VENUE IS
IMPROPERLY LAID. (RULE 16, SECITON 1, PARAGRAPH (C); Being a personal action, therefore, Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was properly
brought in the RTC in Cebu City, where respondent XM Facultad and
II) THAT THE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE Development Corporation, a principal plaintiff, had its address.
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE PROPER LEGAL FEES
HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14, OF THE RULES Upon the same consideration, the petitioner’s contention that the filing and docket
OF COURT AND CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF THE SUPREME COURT, SERIES OF fees for the complaint should be based on the assessed values of the mortgaged
1988; real properties due to Civil Case No. CEB-26468 being a real action cannot be
upheld for lack of factual and legal bases.
III) THAT ZOSIMA BORBON’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ZOSIMA BORBON HAS NO LEGAL PERSONALITY
TO SUE BEING DECEASED, SPOUSE OF PLAINTIFF SILVERIO BORBON.
(RULE 16, SECTION 1(d);

IV) THAT THE ESTATE OF ZOSIMA BORBON BEING AN

INDISPENSABLE PARTY, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO
INCLUDE THE ESTATE OF ZOSIMA BORBON. (RULE 16, SECTION 1(j);

V) THAT THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF XM FACULTAD AND

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
THERE IS NO BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
THIS CASE. [RULE 16, SECTION 1 (d)];

VI) THAT THE PLEADING ASSERTING THE CLAIM STATES NO CAUSE

3
OF ACTION.

On July 5, 2001, the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for being
unmeritorious. CA affirmed the RTC.

The CA held that the petitioner’s averment of non-payment of the proper docket
fee by the respondents as the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was not
substantiated; that even if the correct docket fee was not in fact paid, the strict
application of the rule thereon could be mitigated in the interest of justice;9 and
that Civil Case No. CEB-26468, being a personal action, was properly filed in
Cebu City where respondent XM Facultad and Development Corporation’s
principal office was located.

The petitioner contends, however, that Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was a HEIRS OF DELGADO vs. GONZALES
real action that should be commenced and tried in the proper court having
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
1
FACTS: The police found the dead body of Federico C. Delgado
(Delgado) at his residence in Malate, Manila. The police was alerted by It should be observed that a criminal action shall be instituted by filing the
Annalisa D. Pesico (Pesico), who allegedly was present at the time of the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the
commission of the crime and was likewise injured in the incident. The preliminary investigation. In this case, the criminal action was instituted
Manila Police District (MPD), represented by Alejandro B. Yanquiling Jr., when Alejandro Yanquiling, Jr., Chief of the Homicide Section of the MPD
Chief of the Homicide Section, filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of filed the Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
the City Prosecutor of Manila. The MPD charged respondents Luisito Q. Manila. The Complaint-Affidavit was supported by Pesico's sworn
Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Antonio T. Buenaflor (Buenaflor) with the statement, affidavit of consent from the heirs of Delgado, crime report,
murder of Delgado and frustrated murder of Pesico. Gonzalez is the progress report, SOCO report, and cartographic sketch.
stepbrother of the deceased and Buenaflor was a former driver for 15
years of Citadel Corporation, owned by the Delgado family. Preliminary investigation, although an executive function, is part of a
criminal proceeding. In fact, no criminal proceeding under the jurisdiction
The case was transferred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary of the Regional Trial Court is brought to trial unless a preliminary
investigation. investigation is conducted.

Acting City Prosecutor of Manila Cielitolindo A. Luyun (Investigating We have ruled in a number of cases that only the Solicitor General may
Prosecutor) conducted the preliminary investigation and evaluated the bring or defend actions in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or
evidence submitted by the MPD and thereafter, dismissed the case for represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme
lack of probable cause. Court and the Court of Appeals. However, jurisprudence lays down two
exceptions where a private complainant or offended party in a criminal
However, then Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera case may file a petition directly with this Court. The two exceptions are: (1)
(Acting Secretary Devanadera) reversed the finding of the Investigating when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the
Prosecutor and directed the filing of separate informations for murder and State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State
less serious physical injuries against respondents. and the private offended party, and (2) when the private offended party
questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.
Thus, the charge for murder was filed before the RTC and the charge for
less SPI was filed before the MTC. We reiterate that it is only the Solicitor General who may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the State in all criminal proceedings before the
Respondents filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition appellate courts. Hence, the Solicitor General's non-filing of a petition
assailing the resolutions of Acting Secretary. within the reglementary period before this Court rendered the assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals final and executory with respect to the
CA dismissed the petition. It affirmed the existence of probable cause criminal aspect of the case. The Solicitor General cannot trifle with court
when Pesico positively identified respondents as the perpetrators. proceedings by refusing to file a petition for review only to subsequently,
after the lapse of the reglementary period and finality of the Amended
The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. Decision, file a comment.

CA granted the MR and ordered that the informations be squashed and PETITION IS DENIED.
dismissed.
LIM vs. MEJICA

The Solicitor General, who is now Agnes VST Devanadera, did not appeal FACTS:
the appellate court's Amended Decision which reversed her Resolutions. Atty. Mejica filed a criminal action for grave oral defamation against Lim,
The Solicitor General filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition then incumbent Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of
for Review under Rule 45 before this Court. However, the 30 day the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP) of Oras, Eastern Samar,
extension given had lapsed without the filing of said petition. Thus, the docketed as I.S. No. 08-90-0. He alleged that Lim uttered against him the
Court, in a Resolution dated 8 December 2008, declared G.R. No. 184507 following slanderous words at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan
closed and terminated. of Oras: "HI AGUS BALDADO NAG KIHA KAN ATTY. AKI MEJICA HA
IBP UG YANA HI ATTY. MEJ[I]CA SUSPENDIDO HIT IYA KA ABOGADO
Petitioners claim that in criminal proceedings where the only issue is SAKOP HIN UNOM KA BULAN, IPAN NUMAT NIYO" (Mr. Agus Baldado
probable cause or grave abuse of discretion in relation thereto, the private filed a case against Atty. Mejica before the Integrated Bar of the
complainant and the private respondent are the parties. In such Philippines (IBP) and now Atty. Mejica is suspended from practice of his
proceedings, the "People of the Philippines" is not yet involved as it profession as a lawyer for a period of six (6) months, you relay this
becomes a party to the main criminal proceedings only when the information).
Information is filed with the trial court.
Acting Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II issued a Resolution[3]
Respondents insist that when petitioners asserted their right to prosecute dismissing the complaint of Atty. Mejica for lack of probable cause.
a person for a crime, through the filing of an information, the State,
through its prosecutorial arm, is from that point on, the only real party in However, while Atty. Mejica's MR was still pending before the Office of the
interest. Respondents maintain that only the Solicitor General may Provincial Prosecutor (OPP), he filed on March 31, 2009, for the second
represent the State in appellate proceedings of a criminal case. time, the same complaint[6] before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) of Oras, Eastern Samar.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition
Consequently, Lim filed the instant case alleging that Atty. Mejica
HELD: NO. deliberately committed forum shopping when he filed the same complaint
with the same attachments with the MCTC during the pendency of his MR
The law clearly requires the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the to the dismissal of his complaint before the OPP.
Government in the Supreme Court in all criminal proceedings before Atty. Mejica argued that the filing of the case before the MCTC pending
this Court. the resolution of his MR before the OPP was made in good faith. He
argued that he did not know that an oral defamation case may be filed
Section 1(a) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides: directly with the MCTC. He alleged that he was advised, that an oral
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. -- Criminal actions shall be defamation case is not subject to preliminary investigation and as such he
instituted as follows: could file the same directly with the MCTC.
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to
section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the Also, he argued that since the criminal complaint was filed before the
purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. OAPP, its resolution for probable cause would not be a bar for the court's

2
judicial determination of probable cause considering that in case of oral
defamation, preliminary investigation is not required. In the present case, considering that the crime charged is Grave Oral
Defamation which is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the rule against forum- to prision correccional in its minimum period, the complaint should clearly
shopping be filed directly with the MCTC pursuant to above-quoted provisions.
Thus, the OPP of Oras, Eastern Samar did not acquire jurisdiction over
HELD: NONE. the offense charged.

"There is forum shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in B. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another."[22] "The test for determining forum shopping is WORLDWIDE WEB CORP vs. PEOPLE
whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and relief sought." FACTS: Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional
Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the Philippine National
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or Police filed applications for warrants before the RTC of Quezon City,
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Branch 78, to search the office premises of petitioner Worldwide Web
Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: Corporation. The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting
illegal toll bypass operations, which amounted to theft and violation of
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the Presidential Decree No. 401 (Penalizing the Unauthorized Installation of
same interests in both actions; Water, Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use of Tampered Water
(2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being or Electrical Meters and Other Acts), to the damage and prejudice of the
founded on the same facts; and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
(3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases,
such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, The trial court conducted a hearing on the applications for search
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in warrants. The applicant and Jose Enrico Rivera (Rivera) and Raymund
the other case. Gali (Gali) of the Alternative Calling Pattern Detection Division of PLDT
testified as witnesses.
In the present case, the Court finds that the second requisite of forum
shopping does not exist since there is no identity of relief in I.S. No. 08-90- According to Rivera, a legitimate international long distance call should
0 filed before the OAPP of Oras, Eastern Samar and in Criminal Case No. pass through the local exchange or public switch telephone network
(0)2009-03 filed before the MCTC of the same place. (PSTN) on to the toll center of one of the international gateway facilities
(IGFs) in the Philippines. In contrast, petitioners were able to provide
In the present case, however, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that international long distance call services to any part of the world by using
Atty. Mejica deliberately filed the two complaints for such purpose. As PLDT’s telephone lines, but bypassing its IGF.
aptly explained by him, the same was a result of a mere inadvertence and
that the same was immediately rectified upon coming to his knowledge. Gali further alleged that because PLDT lines and equipment had been
illegally connected by petitioners to a piece of equipment that routed the
Assuming, however, that there is identity of relief, the complaint pending international calls and bypassed PLDT’s IGF, they violated Presidential
before the OPP cannot be considered for purposes of determining if there Decree (P.D.) No. 401 as amended, on unauthorized installation of
was forum shopping. The power of the prosecutor, pursuant to Section 3, telephone connections. Petitioners also committed theft, because through
Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, is only their misuse of PLDT phone lines/numbers and equipment and with clear
investigatory in character. intent to gain, they illegally stole business and revenues that rightly belong
to PLDT.

As to the institution of the criminal action, Section 1, Rule 110 of the RTC granted the application of the SWs.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
Petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu, and Planet Internet filed their
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be respective motions to quash the search warrants, citing basically the same
instituted as follows: grounds: (1) the search warrants were issued without probable cause,
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to since the acts complained of did not constitute theft; (2) toll bypass, the
Section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the act complained of, was not a crime; (3) the search warrants were general
purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. warrants; and (4) the objects seized pursuant thereto were “fruits of the
poisonous tree.”
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly
with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the RTC granted the motion to quash the warrants issued were in the nature
complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered of general warrants. Thus, the properties seized under the said warrants
cities, the complaints shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless were ordered released to petitioners.
otherwise provided in their charters.
PLDT moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied on the ground
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of that it had failed to get the conformity of the City Prosecutor prior to filing
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special the motion, as required under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on
laws. Criminal Procedure.

Moreover, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal The CA reversed and set aside the assailed RTC Resolutions and
Procedure, when preliminary investigation shall be conducted, provides: declared the search warrants valid and effective.
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. - Preliminary
investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is Petitioners contend that PLDT had no personality to question the quashal
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been of the search warrants without the conformity of the public prosecutor.
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be They argue that it violated Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
held for trial. Procedure, to wit:

Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.—All criminal actions
required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, direction and control of the prosecutor.
two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.

3
ISSUE: Whether or not PLDT, without the conformity of the public Sia of Concubinage and directed the filing of an Information against them
prosecutor, had no personality to question the quashal of the search in the appropriate court.
warrants.
Alfredo filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration excepting to the
HELD: NO. The above provision states the general rule that the public Ombudsman’s ruling on the automatic inclusion of Sia as respondent in
prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution of “(a)ll criminal the complaint and their indictment for the crime of Concubinage. Alfredo is
actions commenced by a complaint or information.” However, a search adamant that Rosa’s complaint should have, at the outset, impleaded his
warrant is obtained, not by the filing of a complaint or an information, but alleged concubines. Failing such, the Ombudsman cannot resort to
by the filing of an application therefor. automatic inclusion of party-respondents, erroneously finding him and Sia
prima facie culpable for Concubinage. For good measure, Alfredo pointed
For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, out that from Rosa’s own allegations, she had condoned or pardoned
merely constitutes process. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction Alfredo’s supposed concubinage.
as an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to The Ombudsman stood pat on its ruling, declared that the Partial Motion
search for personal property and bring it before the court. A search for Reconsideration was filed out of time.
warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It
is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made Thus, Alfredo petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion in
necessary because of a public necessity. the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict him and Sia for
Concubinage.
Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.
Meanwhile, we have consistently recognized the right of parties to Alfredo insists that the Ombudsman’s automatic inclusion, over his
question orders quashing those warrants. Accordingly, we sustain the vehement objections of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents, violates
CA’s ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the
before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting Rules of Court, which respectively provide:
a motion to quash search warrants.
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage,
BUSUEGO vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes
of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
FACTS: Private respondent Rosa S. Busuego (Rosa) filed a complaint for: complaint filed by the offended spouse.
(1) Concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code; (2)
violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including
Their Children); and (3) Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall
Penal Code, before the Office of the Ombudsman against her husband. have consented or pardoned the offenders.

She and Alfredo were married on 12 July 1975 at the Assumption Church, Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. – xxx.
Davao City. Their union was blessed with two (2) sons, Alfred and Robert, The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
born in 1976 and 1978, respectively. Sometime in 1983, their marriage upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot
turned sour. At this time, Rosa unearthed photographs of, and love letters institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both are
addressed to Alfredo from, other women. Rosa confronted Alfredo who alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense
claimed ignorance of the existence of these letters and innocence of any or pardoned the offenders.
wrongdoing.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of
Rosa found an opportunity to work as nurse in New York City. However, discretion in including Sia and de Leon as party-respondents in the
this was opposed by Alfredo. complaint

Before leaving, Rosa took up the matter again with Alfredo, who remained HELD: NO. The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the
opposed to her working abroad. Furious with Rosa’s pressing, Alfredo determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. This is
took his loaded gun and pointed it at Rosa’s right temple, threatening and the reason why judicial review of the resolution of the Ombudsman in the
taunting Rosa to attempt to leave him and their family. Alfredo was only exercise of its power and duty to investigate and prosecute felonies and/or
staved off because Rosa’s mother arrived at the couple’s house. Alfredo offenses of public officers is limited to a determination of whether there
left the house in a rage: Rosa and her mother heard gun shots fired has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
outside. jurisdiction. Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that
of the Ombudsman.
Rosa acted up to her plan and was subsequently joined by her sons in the
US. During their time in the US, Alfredo never sent any financial support. The submission of Alfredo is belied by the fact that the Ombudsman
merely followed the provisions of its Rules of Procedure.
Rosa learned that a certain Emy Sia (Sia) was living at their conjugal
home. When Rosa asked Alfredo, the latter explained that Sia was a Section 2. Evaluation – Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating
nurse working at the Regional Hospital in Tagum who was in a sorry plight officer shall recommend whether it may be:
as she was allegedly being raped by Rosa’s brother-in-law. To get her out
of the situation, Alfredo allowed Sia to live in their house and sleep in the d)  forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding
maids’ quarters. At that time, Rosa gave Alfredo the benefit of the doubt. investigation;

Rosa finally learned of Alfredo’s extra-marital relationships with Sia and Section 4. Procedure – The preliminary investigation of cases falling
Julie de Leon. Robert, who was already living in Davao City, called Rosa under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts
to complain of Alfredo’s illicit affairs and shabby treatment of him. shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court, subject to the following provisions:
In the course thereof, the procedural issue of Rosa’s failure to implead Sia
and de Leon as respondents cropped up. Alfredo insisted that Rosa’s d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of
complaint ought to be dismissed for failure to implead his alleged jurisdiction.
concubines as respondents.
Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained.
To dispose of that issue, the Ombudsman scheduled a clarificatory If respondent desires any matter in the complainant’s affidavit to
hearing. The Ombudsman then impleaded Sia and de Leon. , the be clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the
Ombudsman, ultimately, found probable cause to indict only Alfredo and

4
 time of the clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in RTC denied the motion to withdraw information as it found the existence
paragraph (f) of this section. of probable cause to hold the respondents for trial. RTC ordered the
issuance of the warrants of arrest.
f) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting
evidences, there are facts material to the case which the Respondent Alamil moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of
investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he may Judge Capco-Umali, for being biased or partial. Judge voluntarily inhibited
conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be herself.
afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to
examine or cross-examine the witness being questioned. Where RTC granted MR. Petitioner filed MR. RTC denied. Petitioner filed notice
the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable, the of appeal. The RTC denied the petitioner's notice of appeal since the
clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, whereby petitioner filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General, who is
the questions desired to be asked by the investigating officer or mandated to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions
a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness appealed to the CA.
concerned who shall be required to answer the same in writing
and under oath. The CA dismissed outright the petitioner's Rule 65 petition for lack of legal
personality to file the petition on behalf of the People of the Philippines.
Notably, Rosa’s complaint contained not just the Concubinage charge, but
other charges: violation of Republic Act No. 9262 and Grave Threats. The petitioner argues that he has a legal standing to assail the dismissal
Upon the Ombudsman’s perusal, the complaint was supported by of the criminal case since he is the private complainant and a real party in
affidavits corroborating Rosa’s accusations. Thus, at that stage, the interest who had been directly damaged and prejudiced by the
Ombudsman properly referred the complaint to Alfredo for comment. respondents' illegal acts.
Nonetheless, while the Ombudsman found no reason for outright
dismissal, it deemed it fit to hold a clarificatory hearing to discuss the ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has legal standing to assail the dismissal
applicability of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the issue having of the case
been insisted upon by Alfredo.
HELD: NO.
Surely the procedural sequence of referral of the complaint to respondent
for comment and thereafter the holding of a clarificatory hearing is It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
provided for in paragraph b, Section 2 and paragraphs d and f, Section 4 name of the real party in interest[,]" "who stands to be benefited or injured
of Rule II, which we have at the outset underscored. Thus did the by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the
Ombudsman rule: suit." Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected
by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere interest
In order to clarify some matters, including the said issue, with in the question involved. By real interest is meant a present substantial
the parties, the clarificatory hearing was conducted. It was interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent,
explained in the said hearing the need to implead the alleged subordinate or consequential interest. When the plaintiff or the defendant
concubines in this case pursuant to Article 344 of the Revised is not a real party in interest, the suit is dismissible.
Penal Code and to obviate the proceedings, Rosa was directed
to submit the addresses of the alleged concubines. Busuego’s Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal actions commenced
position that the said short cut procedure would delay the by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
proceedings is misplaced. If the case will be dismissed based control of a public prosecutor." In appeals of criminal cases before the CA
on procedural infirmity, Rosa could still amend her complaint and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People,
and re-file this case since the doctrine of res judicata does not pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
apply in the preliminary investigation stage of the proceedings. Administrative Code.
The Ombudsman merely facilitated the amendment of the complaint to The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the
cure the defect pointed out by Alfredo. We agree with the Ombudsman OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA
that it would be superfluous to dismiss the complaint when amendment or in this Court. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several
thereof is allowed by its Rules of Procedure15 and the Rules of Court. cases38and continues to be the controlling doctrine.
PETITION DISMISSED. While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be
allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is
LA JIMENEZ vs. SORONGAN a denial of due process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply in
the present case.
FACTS: The petitioner is the president of Unlad Shipping & Management
Corporation, a local manning agency, while Socrates Antzoulatos, In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal
Carmen Alamil, Marceli Gaza, and Markos Avgoustis (respondents) are of the criminal case since the main issue raised by the petitioner involved
some of the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc. (TMSI), the criminal aspect of the case, i.e., the existence of probable cause. The
another local manning agency. petitioner did not appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an
offended party of the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of the criminal
The petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit4 with the Office of the City action against the respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against the respondents for syndicated pertains exclusively to the People, as represented by the OSG.
and large scale illegal recruitment.

The petitioner alleged that the respondents falsely represented their

stockholdings in TMSI's articles of incorporation6 to secure a license to
operate as a recruitment agency from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA).
Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for
syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment against the respondents.
The City Prosecutor approved his recommendation and filed the CHUA vs. PADILLO
corresponding criminal information with the Regional Trial Court.
FACTS: Rodrigo Padillo and Marietta Padillo, respondents, are the
The City Prosecutor reconsidered the May 4, 2004 resolution and filed a owners of Padillo Lending Investor engaged in the money lending
motion with the RTC to withdraw the information. business in Lucena City. Their niece, Marissa Padillo-Chua, served as the

5
firm’s manager. Marissa is married to Wilson Chua, brother of Renita thereof.3 In Suarez v. Platon,4 this Court described the prosecuting officer
Chua, herein petitioners. as:

One of Marissa’s functions was to evaluate and recommend loan [T]he representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
applications for approval by respondents. Once a loan application had sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
been approved, respondents would authorize the release of a check obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
signed by them or their authorized signatory, a certain Mila Manalo. 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 a servant of the law, the
Sometime in September 1999, a post-audit was conducted. It was found twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.
that Marissa was engaged in illegal activities. Some of the borrowers
whose loan applications she recommended for approval were fictitious Having been vested by law with the control of the prosecution of criminal
and their signatures on the checks were spurious. Marissa’s modus cases, the public prosecutor, in the exercise of his functions, has the
operandi was to alter the name of the payee appearing on the check by power and discretion to: (a) determine whether a prima facie case exists;5
adding another name as an alternative payee. This alternative payee (b) decide which of the conflicting testimonies should be believed free
would then personally encash the check with the drawee bank. The cash from the interference or control of the offended party;6 and (c) subject only
amounts received were turned over to Marissa or her husband Wilson for to the right against self-incrimination, determine which witnesses to
deposit in their personal accounts. To facilitate encashment, Marissa present in court.7
would sign the check to signify to the bank that she personally knew the
alternative payee. The alternative payees included employees of Wilson Given his discretionary powers, a public prosecutor cannot be compelled
or his friends. The total amount embezzled reached ₱7 million. to file an Information where he is not convinced that the evidence before
him would warrant the filing of an action in court. For while he is bound by
Respondents filed complaints against petitioners and several others with his oath of office to prosecute persons who, according to complainant’s
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Lucena City. In turn, the NBI evidence, are shown to be guilty of a crime, he is likewise duty-bound to
forwarded their complaints to the Office of the City Prosecutor, same city, protect innocent persons from groundless, false, or malicious
for preliminary investigation. prosecution.8
We must stress, however, that the public prosecutor’s exercise of his
The City Prosec. filed an Information for estafa against Marissa, Wilson, discretionary powers is not absolute.
and Renita with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City.
First, the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is subject to appeal to
Believing that a more serious offense should have been charged against the Secretary of Justice who, under the Administrative Code of 1987, as
petitioners, respondents interposed an appeal to the Secretary of Justice. amended, exercises control and supervision over the investigating
prosecutor. Thus, the Secretary of Justice may affirm, nullify, reverse, or
SOJ directed the City Prosecution Office to file the Information of the modify the ruling of said prosecutor." In special cases, the public
complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents prosecutor’s decision may even be reversed or modified by the Office of
defined and penalized under Article 315 par. 1(b) in relation to Articles 171 the President.
and 172 (58 counts) against respondent Marissa Padillo-Chua and to
cause the withdrawal of the Information of estafa through falsification of Second, the Court of Appeals may review the resolution of the Secretary
commercial documents against respondents Wilson Chua and Renita of Justice on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Chua. Civil Procedure, as amended, on the ground that he committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62401. They alleged that in issuing the Here, the Court notes that the Court of Appeals, on motion for
Resolution dated January 3, 2000 directing the Prosecutor’s Office of reconsideration by respondents, ruled that the Secretary of Justice
Lucena City to file the corresponding Information only against Marissa, the committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving that only Marissa should
Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion. be charged.
CA dismissed. Respondents filed MR. CA promulgated Amended Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
Decision ordering the DOJ, City Prosecutor, Lucena City to include Wilson judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. We have carefully
Chua and Renita Chua as accused in the said case. examined the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice dated January 3,
2000 wherein he ruled that there was no probable cause to hold Wilson
the Court of Appeals found that it overlooked certain facts and Chua and Renita Chua for estafa through falsification of commercial
circumstances which, if considered, would establish probable cause documents. As found by the Court of Appeals, the Secretary of Justice
against Wilson and Renita. The Court of Appeals identified these facts to either overlooked or patently ignored the following circumstances: (1)
be: (1) Marissa’s consistent practice of depositing checks with altered Marissa’s practice of depositing checks, with altered names of payees, in
names of payees to the respective accounts of Wilson Chua and Renita the respective accounts of Wilson and Renita Chua; (2) the fact that
Chua; (2) considering that Wilson and Marissa are husband and wife, it Wilson and Marissa are husband and wife makes it difficult to believe that
can be inferred that one knows the transactions of the other; and (3) one has no idea of the transactions entered into by the other; and (3) the
Wilson had full knowledge of the unlawful activities of Marissa. This is affidavit of Ernesto Alcantara dated November 26, 1998 confirming that
supported by the affidavit of Ernesto Alcantara dated November 26, 1998. Wilson had knowledge of Marissa’s illegal activities.
Hence, the instant petition. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals Indeed, as we ruled in Sanchez v. Demetriou,12 not even the Supreme
erred in compelling the Secretary of Justice to include in the Information Court can order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor
Wilson and Renita. does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case.
The only possible exception to this rule is where there is an unmistakable
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in compelling the SOJ to include in showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor, as in
the Information Wilson and Renita this case.
HELD: NO. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in directing the City Prosecutor of
Lucena City to include Wilson and Renita Chua in the Information for the
Section 5, Rule 110 of the 200 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
partly provides that "All criminal actions either commenced by a complaint
or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a PETITION DISMISSED.
public prosecutor." The rationale for this rule is that since a criminal
offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State, it necessarily follows
that a representative of the State shall direct and control the prosecution PINOTE vs. AUCO
6
 a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
FACTS: withdrawn.
On August 13 and 20, 2004, Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Branch 26, RTC of Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the
South Cotabato allowed the defense in Criminal Case No. 1771 TB, Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly
'People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et al., for violation of Section 3 of prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. It is on this
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, to present evidence consisting of the account that the presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal
testimony of two witnesses, even in the absence of State Prosecutor cases is necessary to protect vital state interests, foremost of which is its
Ringcar B. Pinote who was prosecuting the case. interest to vindicate the rule of law, the bedrock of peace of the people.

State Prosecutor Pinote was undergoing medical treatment at the Respondent's act of allowing the presentation of the defense witnesses in
Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City, hence, his absence during the the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a private prosecutor
proceedings. designated for the purpose is thus a clear transgression of the Rules
which could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a
On the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case on August 27, chance to cross-examine the witnesses.
October 1, 15 and 29, 2004, State Prosecutor Pinote refused to cross-
examine the two defense witnesses, despite being ordered by Judge Respondent's intention to uphold the right of the accused to a speedy
Ayco, he maintaining that the proceedings conducted on August 13 and disposition of the case, no matter how noble it may be, cannot justify a
20, 2004 in his absence were void. breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due process, so is the
State.
State Prosecutor Pinote subsequently filed a Manifestation on November
12, 2004 before the trial court, he restating why he was not present on Respondent's lament about complainant's failure to inform the court of his
August 13 and 20, 2004, and reiterating his position that Judge Ayco's act inability to attend the August 13 and 20, 2004 hearings or to file a motion
of allowing the defense to present evidence in his absence was erroneous for postponement thereof or to subsequently file a motion for
and highly irregular. He thus prayed that he should not be 'coerced to reconsideration of his Orders allowing the defense to present its two
cross-examine those two defense witnesses and that their testimonies be witnesses on said dates may be mitigating. It does not absolve
stricken off the record. respondent of his utter disregard of the Rules.

Judge Ayco considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross- WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is hereby ordered to
examine the two defense witnesses. pay a fine FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
Hence, arose the present administrative complaint lodged by State severely.
Prosecutor Pinote (complainant) against Judge Ayco (respondent), for
'Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Respecting the counter-complaint against complainant State Prosecutor
Misconduct. Ringcar B. Pinote, respondent is advised that the same should be lodged
before the Secretary of Justice.
Judge Ayco argued that no substantial prejudice was suffered by the
prosecution for complainant was permitted to cross examine the two PILAPIL vs. IBAY-SOMERA
defense witnesses but he refused to do so.
FACTS:
By way of counter-complaint, respondent charges complainant with Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private
'Contempt of Court and 'Grave Misconduct and/or 'Conduct Unbecoming respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married
of a Member of the Bar and as an Officer of the Court. before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in
the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage started auspiciously
On evaluation of the case, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), enough, and the couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila
citing Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure, where their only child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling.
finds respondent to have breached said rule and accordingly recommends
that he be reprimanded therefor, with warning that a repetition of the same After three and a half years of marriage, private respondent initiated a
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany and subsequently
obtained a decree of divorce.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Ayco erred in allowing the presentation of
the defense witnesses in the absence of the public prosecutor More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private
respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of
HELD: YES. Manila alleging that, while still married to said respondent, petitioner "had
Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads: an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another
Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - All criminal actions man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983". Assistant Fiscal Jacinto A.
commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the de los Reyes, Jr., after the corresponding investigation, recommended the
direction and control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule or dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 5
in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal approved a resolution,
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional dated January 8, 1986, directing the filing of two complaints for adultery
State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case subject to the approval of against the petitioner.
the Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial The petitioner contended that the court is without jurisdiction "to try and
even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked decide the charge of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be
or otherwise withdrawn. prosecuted de officio (sic), since the purported complainant, a foreigner,
does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce
Thus, as a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint."
control and direction of the public prosecutor.
ISSUE: Whether or not court has jurisdiction over the case
If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however, or in
case there are no public prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be HELD: NONE.
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, 17 the crime of adultery, as
State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to the approval of well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except
the court. Once so authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long
prosecute the case until the termination of the trial even in the absence of since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance
with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement.

7
 CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that the OSG had not given its
The law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and conformity to the said appeal.
concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be the
offended spouse, and nobody else.
Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to
institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may
status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even without
the criminal action. This is a familiar and express rule in civil actions; in the OSG’s conformity.
fact, lack of legal capacity to sue, as a ground for a motion to dismiss in
civil cases, is determined as of the filing of the complaint or petition. HELD: NO.

Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by petitioners
no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence against the May 23, 2007 Order of the RTC because they, being mere
the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at private complainants, lacked the legal personality to appeal the dismissal
the time he filed suit. of Criminal Case No. 06-875 (resulting from the quashal of the information
therein on the ground of lack of jurisdiction).
The allegation of private respondent that he could not have brought this
case before the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is of It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of
no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG26
initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there would no which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and
longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people
marriage is decreed. Neither would there be a danger of introducing before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as
spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reasons for the ends of justice may require.
the particular formulation of our law on adultery, 26 since there would
thenceforth be no spousal relationship to speak of. The severance of the Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal
marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only
other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the
other. People. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file
an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil
WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner's motion to quash liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action
is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING the complaint in for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end
Criminal Case No. 87-52435 for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case.
restraining order issued in this case on October 21, 1987 is hereby made
permanent. To repeat, the right to prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the
People, which is therefore the proper party to bring the appeal through the
PEOPLE vs. PICCIO representation of the OSG. Petitioners have no personality or legal
standing to interpose an appeal in a criminal proceeding. Since the OSG
FACTS: Jessie John P. Gimenez, President of the Philippine Integrated had expressly withheld its conformity and endorsemen! in the instant
Advertising Agency – the advertising arm of the Yuchengco Group of case, the CA, therefore, correctly dismissed the appeal. It rnust, however,
Companies, to which Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. is a corporate be clarified. that the aforesaid dismissal is without prejudice to their filing
member – filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before the Office of the City of the appropriate action to preserve their interests but only with respect to
Prosecutor of Makati City against a group called the Parents Enabling the civil aspect of the libel case following the parameters of Rule 111 of
Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting on the website the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
www.pepcoalition.com on August 25, 2005 an article entitled “Back to the
Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance with WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated September
Coalition.” As alleged in the complaint, such publication was highly 15, 2009 and September 2, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. CR
defamatory and libelous against the Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco No. 31549 dismissing petitioners' appeal from the dismissal of the criminal
Group of Companies, particularly petitioners Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. case for libel are hereby AFFIRMED.
and Helen Y. Dee.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City8 found probable cause to
indict 16 trustees, officers and/or members of PEPCI for 13 counts of libel.

RTC quashed the criminal information for libel and dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction,10 holding that the criminal information failed to allege
where the article was printed and first published.

The People of the Philippines (People), through the private prosecutors,

and with the conformity of public prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr., filed
a Notice of Appeal. The OSG, for its part, however, sought suspension of
the period to file the required brief pending information and endorsement
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on whether it is the People or the
private complainant that should file the same.

Meanwhile, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, citing as

grounds for dismissal the fact that the Brief for the Private Complainants-
Appellants filed by petitioners did not carry the conforme of the OSG and
that ordinary appeal was not the appropriate remedy.

Petitioners insisted that the trial court’s order of dismissal was a final order
from which an appeal was available; that the notice of appeal was signed
by the public prosecutor and therefore valid; and that jurisprudence shows
that the conformity of the OSG is not required when grave errors are
committed by the trial court or where there is lack of due process.