In criminal cases, an accused has constitutional right against double jeopardy. It means that he cannot be exposed to the same danger twice.
If he is acquitted, that decision is always final and executory such that the complainant cannot appeal the acquittal decision, as a general rule. This so because the appeal will open up the case and expose the accused to a second jeopardy.
Though an acquittal decision is not appealable, the government thru the Office of the Solicitor General [OSG] can elevate the acquittal by filing a petition for certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion of the trial court or mistrial.
In a criminal case, can a private complainant appeal the judgment of acquittal? This issue was tackled by our Honorable Supreme Court sitting en banc in Austria v. AAA & BBB, G.R. No. 205275 promulgated on June 28, 2022, but was publicized on February 4, 2023, harmonizing its previous rulings by laying down the guidelines on the legal standing of private offended parties when questioning judgments or orders in criminal proceedings.
The facts of the case in its 36-page decision are: In 2006, the RTC convicted Mamerto Austria, a public school teacher, of five counts of acts of lasciviousness filed against him by two 11-year old female students.
The judge who rendered the conviction was promoted. A new judge took over. In 2008, Austria moved for reconsideration. The RTC granted it and acquitted Austria in its Joint Orders, which simply copied the allegations of Austria in his motion for reconsideration.
It has neither analysis of the evidence nor reference to legal basis for its conclusion. Complainants moved for reconsideration. The RTC denied it. They elevated the case to the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion. Austria invoked his right against double jeopardy.
As the CA reversed the RTC’s acquittal and reinstated his conviction, Austria went to the Supreme Court invoking his right against double jeopardy and claiming that complainants had no legal personality to question his acquittal.
The Supreme Court ruled that complainants had proven that RTC’s acquittal order was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, despotic exercise of judgment and issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Its orders had no factual and legal justification. The disputed act of the trial court goes beyond the limits of discretion thus effecting an injustice. It also ruled that Austria’s right against double jeopardy was not violated since the RTC’s acquittal orders were void judgment and as such have no legal effect and did not terminate the case.
It remanded the case to the RTC to comply with the requirement to state the factual and legal basis in ruling on the motion for reconsideration.
To harmonize the divergent doctrines in all its previous rulings, the Supreme Court formulated the following guidelines to determine the legal personality of private offended party in questioning criminal judgments or orders: One, private complainant’s interest is limited to the civil aspect of the criminal case. Only the OSG may question the judgment or order of the trial court involving the criminal aspect of the case before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
Two, as to the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, the private complainant has no legal personality to appeal without the conformity of the OSG. Such conformity must be requested within the period of appeal or certiorari. If it is not yet granted within such period, complainant must allege in his or her appeal/petition that the request is still pending with the OSG. If the OSG denies the request for conformity, the reviewing court shall dismiss the private complainant’s appeal/petition for lack of legal personality.
Three, if the petition for certiorari filed by complainant challenges the acquittal of the accused and the dismissal of the criminal case on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the reviewing court shall require the OSG to file a comment within 30-day non-extendible from notice.
Four, these guidelines shall be prospective in application.
