PASDA, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Emmanuel D. Pascual

A private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari questioning the criminal aspect of a criminal case—such as the grant of bail pending appeal or the acquittal of the accused—unless the remedy is made with the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General; the private complainant's interest is limited to the civil aspect. An acquittal not attended by grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process is final and executory, and double jeopardy bars further review.

PASDA, Inc. is a corporation; Emmanuel D. Pascual was its former president and a current board director. The dispute implicates the authority of the Office of the Solicitor General under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code to represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and the guidelines in Austria vs. AAA on the legal standing of private complainants to question judgments or orders in criminal proceedings.

PASDA, Inc. charged Emmanuel D. Pascual, its former president and current board director, with three counts of qualified theft before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 65. The informations alleged that sometime from January to February 2016, in Tarlac City, Emmanuel, with grave abuse of confidence, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of PASDA, took, stole, and carried away company money by issuing company checks under his name and obtaining their proceeds: (a) check no. 440821 dated December 7, 2015 for PHP 1,065,000.00; (b) check no. 440833 dated January 5, 2016 for PHP 9,500,000.00; and (c) check no. 440810 dated December 4, 2015 for PHP 2,870,621.08.

Emmanuel pleaded not guilty, and joint trial ensued. Prosecution witnesses testified that Emmanuel had access to confidential records and was designated as a signatory of checks to pay corporate expenditures. He was replaced because of various irregularities during his term. In 2016, the audit investigation showed that Emmanuel issued three checks without authority from PASDA's Board of Directors, and the checks were deposited to Emmanuel's account.

Emmanuel denied the accusations. He claimed that PASDA authorized him to sign checks, all covered by their corresponding vouchers. Specifically, the assailed transactions were advances he later returned through a manager's check.

The CA found that Emmanuel was duly authorized to transact on behalf of PASDA when the questioned checks were issued. Board Resolution No. 2007-001 dated August 13, 2007 was admitted by the prosecution through stipulation of facts in the Order dated February 27, 2020. The Secretary's Certificate issued by Atty. Victor Rey Santos requiring two signatories in the issuance of PASDA's checks was issued only on May 5, 2016, while the subject checks were dated December 2015 and January 2016, so it could not be construed as revocation of Board Resolution No. 2007-001. A BDO employee confirmed Emmanuel's authority to withdraw, PASDA did not file a complaint against BDO, and the prosecution failed to prove that Board Resolution No. 2007-001 was already revoked when Emmanuel issued and withdrew the checks. The CA also found that Emmanuel's open issuance of the checks, supported by check vouchers, was under the honest and bona fide belief that he was authorized, and that he returned the value of the subject checks. The prosecution thus failed to prove intent to gain, lack of consent, and grave abuse of confidence. After the CA ruled in Emmanuel's favor, PASDA filed the present Petition for Certiorari on November 28, 2022.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner PASDA ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in granting bail pending appeal in favor of Emmanuel and subsequently acquitting him of the criminal charges.

• Lack of Legal Standing: Respondent Emmanuel sought dismissal of the Petition for PASDA's lack of legal standing to question the criminal aspect of the case.
• Absence of OSG Conformity: The OSG argued that PASDA never requested its conformity or consulted it before filing the Petition.

• Legal Standing of Private Complainant: Whether PASDA, as private complainant, has the legal personality to file a Petition for Certiorari questioning the CA's grant of bail pending appeal and judgment of acquittal without the conformity of the OSG.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the CA's judgment of acquittal is final and executory, barring the Petition, absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.

• Legal Standing of Private Complainant: No. A private complainant's interest is limited to the civil aspect; questioning the criminal aspect or right to prosecute requires the OSG's conformity. PASDA questioned bail pending appeal and acquittal without OSG conformity.
• Double Jeopardy: Yes. Double jeopardy set in because all elements concurred, and absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the acquittal is final and executory.

• Legal Standing of Private Complainant: Austria vs. AAA harmonized case law and ruled that divergent rulings do not grant a private complainant blanket authority to question judgments or orders in criminal proceedings without the OSG's intervention. The People, through the OSG, has legal interest over the criminal aspect, while the private complainant has legal interest only over the civil aspect. The private complainant may appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve that civil interest, but the remedy must allege the specific pecuniary interest. If the resolution of the private complainant's remedy will necessarily affect the criminal aspect or the right to prosecute, the reviewing court must require the OSG to file comment. The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the criminal aspect or the right to prosecute unless made with the OSG's conformity; the private complainant must request conformity within the reglementary period, and if the OSG denies the request, the Court shall dismiss the remedy for lack of legal personality. Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code mandates the OSG to represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. The rationale is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant; the private complainant's role in the prosecution of the offense is limited to that of a witness, such that when a criminal case is dismissed or the accused is acquitted, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the OSG. Here, PASDA filed its Petition for Certiorari on November 28, 2022, after Austria vs. AAA was rendered on June 28, 2022. PASDA questioned the CA's order granting bail pending appeal and the judgment of acquittal, matters that necessarily involved the criminal aspect of the case. PASDA did not request the OSG's conformity. It also did not discuss the civil liability of the accused, and records showed that Emmanuel returned the value of the subject checks. The OSG effectively refused to give its conformity when it prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. Thus, the Petition was dismissed for lack of legal standing.
• Double Jeopardy: Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Double jeopardy exists when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without their consent. All elements were present. Emmanuel was validly charged with three counts of qualified theft before the RTC, pleaded not guilty to the charges, was convicted by the RTC after trial, and was acquitted by the CA on appeal based on reasonable doubt. Absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the judgment of acquittal is final and executory.

• Private Complainant's Legal Standing in Criminal Proceedings — The private complainant has legal interest only in the civil aspect of a criminal case. The private complainant may appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve that civil interest, but the appeal or petition must allege the specific pecuniary interest; failure to comply may result in denial or dismissal. The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question 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; if granted, the original copy of the conformity must be attached as proof, and if the OSG denies the request, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for lack of legal personality. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant's remedy will necessarily affect the criminal aspect or the right to prosecute. These guidelines are prospective in application. Applied: PASDA questioned bail pending appeal and acquittal, which are criminal aspects, without OSG conformity, and did not discuss civil liability; dismissal followed.
• OSG's Exclusive Authority over the Criminal Aspect — Under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, the OSG represents the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. In a criminal case, the State, not the private complainant, is affected by the dismissal of the criminal action or the acquittal of the accused; the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness. Applied: only the OSG may question the criminal aspect of the case; PASDA lacked legal standing.
• Double Jeopardy — Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Double jeopardy exists when: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without consent. Absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, an acquittal is final and executory. Applied: all elements were present, and the CA's acquittal of Emmanuel was final.

• "The private complainant cannot question the resolution granting the application for bail pending appeal and the subsequent judgment acquitting the accused. The interest of the offended party is limited only to the civil aspect of the case." — This states the core ruling: a private complainant may not challenge the criminal aspect of bail pending appeal or acquittal, because its interest is confined to the civil aspect.
• "The rule remains that only the OSG may question before the SC and the CA matters involving the criminal aspect of the case." — This is the controlling formulation of the OSG's exclusive authority over the criminal aspect in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
• "The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG's conformity." — This is the canonical guideline on the private complainant's lack of legal personality absent OSG conformity.
• "Absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the judgment of acquittal is final and executory." — This states the finality of an acquittal and the double jeopardy bar to further review.

• Austria vs. AAA, G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022 — Controlling precedent; harmonized case law and formulated the guidelines on the private complainant's legal personality to question judgments and orders in criminal proceedings, which the Court applied to dismiss PASDA's Petition.
• Rodriguez vs. Gadiane, 527 Phil. 691 (2006) — Cited for the rationale that the party affected by the dismissal of a criminal action is the State and not the private complainant; the private complainant's interest is restricted to the civil liability of the accused, and its role is limited to that of a witness.
• Merciales vs. CA, 429 Phil. 70 (2002) — Cited for the elements of double jeopardy.
• People vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 661 Phil. 350 (2011) — Cited for the rule that absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the judgment of acquittal is final and executory.

• Article III, Section 21, 1987 Constitution — Provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Applied: the CA's acquittal of Emmanuel was final, and double jeopardy set in.
• Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35(1), 1987 Administrative Code — Provides that the Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. Applied: only the OSG may question the criminal aspect of the case; PASDA lacked legal standing without OSG conformity.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the Petition for Certiorari filed by PASDA. Applied: the Petition was dismissed for lack of legal standing.
• Article 310, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes qualified theft. The RTC convicted Emmanuel under this article; the CA reversed and acquitted him, and the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal.

Leonen, SAJ (Chairperson); Lazaro-Javier, J.; Lopez, M., J.; and Kho, Jr., J., concurred.