A complainant in a criminal case cannot challenge the grant of bail or any court order like acquittal of an accused without the conformity of the State through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Supreme Court (SC) said.

The SC reiterated that in a criminal case, “the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant” whose “interest is restricted only to the civil liability of the accused.”

“In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness such that when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the OSG,” it said.

The State is the Republic of the Philippines which is represented by its sovereign government. OSG is part of the government as its chief legal counsel. 

The SC’s decision, written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, dismissed the petition filed by PASDA, Inc., a firm engaged in hotel and commercial leasing, which challenged the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that granted bail and later acquitted Emmanuel D. Pascual of qualified theft in three cases. 

The criminal charges against Pascual, who during the time of the incident was a member of the PASDA’s board of directors, alleged that he stole money from the firm by issuing checks in his name and reportedly pocketing the proceeds amounting to more than P13.3 million.

In 2020, the Tarlac City regional trial court (RTC) convicted Pascual who was sentenced to jail terms ranging from 20 to 40 years in each of the two cases, and from eight to 20 years in one case. He appealed the conviction before the CA. 

While on appeal, the CA allowed Pascual to post bail pending appeal. Later, the CA acquitted Pascual with a ruling that he was duly authorized, as evidenced by a Board Resolution, to issue and withdraw the checks on behalf of PASDA.

The acquittal prompted PASDA to elevate the issue before the SC.

The OSG, representing the State, asked the SC to dismiss PASDA’s petition for lack of standing to question the criminal aspect of Pascual’s cases. 

The SC dismissed PASDA’s petition for filing the pleading without the OSG’s conformity.

The SC ruled: 

“PASDA did not request the OSG's conformity. Also, nowhere in the Petition did PASDA even briefly discuss the civil liability of the accused (Pascual). 

“Records show that Pascual returned the value of the subject checks. In any event, the OSG effectively refused to give its conformity when it prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. Taken together, the Court is constrained to dismiss the Petition on the ground of lack of legal standing or personality of PASDA to question the acquittal of the accused.

“Finally, double jeopardy has set in. The Constitution is explicit that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

“There is double jeopardy 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 cou1i 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.

“Here, all the elements are present. Pascual was validly charged with three counts of qualified theft before the RTC. Pascual pleaded not guilty to the charges. After trial, the RTC convicted Pascual.  On appeal, the CA acquitted him based on reasonable doubt. Absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the judgment of acquittal is final and executory.

“Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. The Decision dated Sept. 19, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 15 115 is affirmed. Emmanuel D. Pascual is acquitted of the crime of qualified theft based on reasonable doubt. Let entry of final judgment be issued.”