PEOPLE VS.

JUDGE SANTIAGO
G.R. No. L-80778 June 20, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 101 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and SEGUNDINA ROSARIO y SEMBRANO, respondents.
FACTS:
On June 2, 1987 an information for violation of P.D. No. 772 was filed by the Assistant City
Fiscal of Quezon City, with the approval of the city fiscal, in the RTC of the same city against
Segundina Rosario y Sembrano, which reads, among others, as follows:
That on or about 16th day of December, 1986, and for sometime prior thereto and
persisting up to the present, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the
University of the Philippines, the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in occupying and/or possessing a
portion of the said property, by then and there construct his/her house therein for
residential purposes, without the consent and against the will of the said offended party.
Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and a pre-trial conference was held on August
14, 1987 wherein the accused informed the court that she has a title, a building permit and
survey plan covering the subject land.
On October 27, 1978, the questioned decision was rendered by the respondent judge acquitting
the accused of the offense charged with costs de oficio. Hence, the herein petition for certiorari
filed by the counsel for the private offended party, U.P., in behalf of the People of the
Philippines. The petition seeks to render null and void the aforesaid decision for want of due
process as the acquittal of the accused was rendered without a trial on the merits.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not double jeopardy attaches in the event of a judgment of acquittal of the
accused without a trial on the merits.
b) Whether or not the complainant or private offended party in a criminal case can file a special
civil action for certiorari questioning the validity of said judgment of acquittal without the
intervention of the Solicitor General.
HELD:
a) No. A trial on the merits should be undertaken to determine once and for all whether the
place where the structure was built by the accused belongs to U.P. or to the accused. The

acquittal of the accused is a nullity for want of due process. The prosecution was not given the
opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the representations of the accused. The
prosecution is as much entitled to due process as the accused in a criminal case. Double
jeopardy cannot be invoked as a bar to another prosecution in this case. There is double
jeopardy only when: 1) there is a valid complaint or information; 2) filed before a competent
court; 3) to which defendant had pleaded; and 4) of which he has previously been convicted or
acquitted or which was dismissed or terminated without his express consent.
b) Yes. In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by
the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended
party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may
file such special civil action questioning the decision or action respondent court on jurisdictional
grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the
Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant.
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the
private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the
prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the
prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal
therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor
General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The
private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended
party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.