Austria Vs AAA

Austria vs AAA
Facts:
In 2006, the Regional Trial Court convicted Mamerto Austria, a school teacher, of five
counts of acts of lasciviousness committed against private complainants, both 11-year
old female students. Mamerto moved for reconsideration. Meantime, the trial judge
handling the trial cases was promoted. On August 15, 2008, the new presiding judge
resolved the motion and rendered joint orders acquitting Mamerto.
Private complainants were unsuccessful at a reconsideration. They then filed a special

civil action for certiorari to the Court of Appeals alleging that the new presiding judge
committed grave abuse of discretion since his Orders merely recited the contents of
Mamerto's motion for reconsideration without stating any factual and legal basis.
On July 31, 2012, the CA ruled in favor of private complainants and the Joint Orders
were declared void hence this petition of Mamerto for review on certiorari. He
questioned the legal personality of the private complainants to question his acquittal
since they cannot avail of a petition for certiorari without the participation of the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG).
On August 3, 2021, the Court required the OSG to file a comment on the private
complainant’s legal standing in a criminal case. In its comment, the OSG stated that
only the OSG may question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the
case. However, it clarified that the private complainants may appeal insofar as the civil
liability of the accused in concerned, or file a special civil action for certiorari to
preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case. In both cases, there is no
need to implead the State as the case involves purely private interests. Lastly, the OSG
gave its conformity to the petition for certiorari that private complainant filed before the
CA. The OSG argued that the trial court’s Joint Orders are void for failure to state
clearly the factual and legal bases of Mamerto’s acquittal.
Issues:
1. Whether the private complainants have the legal personality to question
petitioner’s acquittal
Ruling:
1. Yes.
The Court cited various jurisprudence wherein appeals or petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal
of the accused, dismissal of the criminal case, and interlocutor orders rendered in the criminal proceedings
filed without consent or conformity of the OSG were dismissed because of lack of legal standing of
personality. Yet, there are instances where the Court allowed these appeals or petitions.
Given the divergent decisions on the private complainant’s legal standing in a criminal case, private
complainants cannot be faulted when they relied on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal
aspect of the case through a petition for certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and denial of
due process. Hence, the Court did not dismiss their remedy.
There are divergent decisions on the private complainant's legal standing in a

criminal case-some petitions without OSG's conformint were granted and some
were dismissed. In this case, private complainants cannot be faulted when they
relied on jurisprudence allowing them to assail the criminal aspect of the case
through a petition for certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and
denial of due process. Hence, the Court did not dismiss their remedy.
In fact, the OSG joined the cause of private complainants, and gave its
conformity to the petition for certiorari that the private complainants filed before
the CA. TO avoid further delay, the Court deemed it more appropriate and practical to resolve the issue
of whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion which it did. when it
disregarded the constitutional requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which it is based. The RTC was indeed guilty of grave abuse of discretion.
The Court then harmonized the case law and formulated an edifying rule on the
private complainant’s legal standing to question judgments or orders in criminal
proceedings consistent with its exclusive rule-making authority. Private
complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or
file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the
criminal case. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty days from the notice. On the other hand, private
complainant has no legal personality for those involving the criminal aspect of
the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG’s conformity. The
private complainant must request the OSG’s conformity within the reglementary
period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari. The reviewing court shall require
the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period for certiorari questioning
the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and the
interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion or denial of due process.
The petition of Mamerto was denied. The decision of the CA was affirmed with
modification.

Austria Vs AAA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austria Vs AAA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Austria Vs AAA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austria vs AAA

Private complainants were unsuccessful at a reconsideration. They then filed a special

There are divergent decisions on the private complainant's legal standing in a

You might also like