FACTS:
Petitioners in this case seek the annulment of respondent Judge’s orders in
criminal cases denying petitioners’ motion for respondent judge to disqualify
or inhibit himself from hearing and acting upon their Motion for New Trial. The
SC issued a Resolution asking the respondent Judge to file his answer. Said
Resolution also issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the respondent
from further proceeding with the criminal cases.
The Solicitor
General informed the SC that they are "persuaded that there are bases
for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his
resolution on the motion for new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and
prejudice. The OSG further submits that the case should he remanded to the
trial court for the rendition of a new decision and with instruction to receive
additional evidence proferred by the accused with the right of the prosecution
to present rebuttal evidence as may be warranted.
Private
prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the
challenged Orders of the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this
case.
*contentions:
Petitioner claimed that the
private prosecutor has absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings.
The private prosecutors now
contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in the
proceedings, and to adopt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor
General.
ISSUE: Whether
or not the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the
Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in
the present proceedings.
HELD: NO. To
begin with, it will be noted that the
participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited
by this Court in its Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate with the Solicitor General
in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this
Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor
General. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand
independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor
General.
The role of the private prosecutors is to
represent the offended party, with respect to the civil action for the recovery
of the civil liability arising from the offense. 'This civil action is deemed
instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly
waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately. Therefore,
although the private prosecutors may be permitted to intervene, they are not in
control of the case, and their interests are subordinate to those of the People
of the Philippines represented by the fiscal.
It is
evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to
represent the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the
private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be
allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for
that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the
criminal proceedings, contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules
on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment