~ LOPEZ ~ G.R. No.
178607 December 5, 2012 it already found probable cause; also, respondent Alamil has
DANTE LA. JIMENEZ, as President and representative of
UNLAD SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT CORP., petitioner vs. HON.
SORONGON (Presiding Judge RTC 214 Mandaluyong City),
SOCRATES ANTZOULATOS, CARMEN ALAMIL, MARCELI GAZA
AND MARKOS AVGOUSTIS, respondents
BRION, J.
Recit Ready: The petitioner argues that he has a legal standing to
assail the dismissal of the criminal case since he is the private
complainant and a real party in interest who had been directly
damaged and prejudiced by the respondents illegal acts while
respondents submit that the petitioner lacks a legal standing to
assail the dismissal of the criminal case since the power to
prosecute lies solely with the State, acting through a public
prosecutor; the petitioner acted independently and without the
authority of a public prosecutor in the prosecution and appeal of
the case. SC held in favor of respondents as OSG has the legal
personality to represent the Government and People in appeals of
criminal cases.
Doctrine: The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case
and only the Office of the Solicitor General can represent the
People in criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Appeals or in
the Supreme Court.
Facts:
1. Jimenez was the president of UNLAD Shipping and
Management Corp. (UNLAD), a local manning agency, while
private respondents were incorporators of Tsakos Maritime
Services, Inc, (TMSI), another local manning agency.
2. Jimenez filed a complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor against respondents for syndicated and large
scale illegal recruitment, alleging that respondents falsely
represented their stockholdings in TMSIs articles of inc. to
secure license to operate from POEA. Respondents denied
the allegations.
3. The City Prosecutor approved complaint and filed a criminal
information with the RTC, BUT he then reconsidered and
filed a motion to withdraw the information.
4. RTC denied the motion to withdraw as it found existence of
probable cause to hold respondents for trial. Hence, RTC
ordered issuance of warrants of arrest.
5. Respondent Alamil then filed a motion for judicial
determination of probable cause with a request to defer
enforcement of the warrants of arrest, which RTC denied as
already voluntarily submitted to RTCs jurisdiction through
filing of pleadings with affirmative reliefs.
6. Respondent Alamil filed an MR and moved for inhibition of
current judge (Judge Umali) for being biased. Petitioner
Jimenez filed an opposition and motion to expunge as Alamil
had no standing to seek relief as he was a fugitive.
7. Judge Umali inhibited herself and was raffled to Judge
Sorongon. The RTC then ruled in favor of Alamil, dismissing
the complaint/information for lack of probable cause since
there was no evidence to indicate respondents alleged
crime. RTC also set aside warrants of arrest.
8. Jimenez filed an MR, which the RTC denied; so Jimenez filed
a notice of appeal, which Alamil moved to expunge since
public prosecutor did not authorize the appeal and Jimenez
had not civil interest in the case. Jimenez countered that he
was the offended party and that TMSIs fraudulent acts
greatly prejudiced him.
9. RTC denied notice of appeal since there was no conformity
of the Solicitor General, who is mandated to represent
People of the PH in criminal actions appealed to the CA.
10. Jimenez elevated the case to the CA under Rule 65,
certiorari but was denied as OSG had the legal personality
to file the petition in behalf of the People of the PH, as
provided in Sec. 35, Chap. 12 of the Administrative Code.
11. CA also held that Jiminez was not the real party in interest to
institute case as he was not the victim of the crime, but
merely a competitor in business.
Issue/s: W/N petitioner Jimenez was the real party in interest
Held: No. Jimenez has no legal personality to assail dismissal of the
criminal case.
1. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest. "who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled
to the avails of the suit." Interest means material interest or
an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment
of the case.
2. Procedural law mandates that all criminal actions
commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and
before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
People, as stated in the Administrative Code (OSG shall
 represent Government in the SC and CA in all criminal
proceedings.
3. The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and
only the OSG can represent the People in criminal
proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.
4. Petitioner has no legal since the main issue raised by
Jimenez involved the criminal aspect of the case, i.e., the
existence of probable cause. He did not appeal to protect his
alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of the crime,
but to cause the reinstatement of the criminal action against
the respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which
pertains exclusively to the People, as represented by the
OSG.
5. The Court also ruled that Alamil was deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court when he filed
several motions before the RTC seeking the dismissal of the
criminal case.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal.