People v. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120 (1922) Held: Yes.

G.R. No. 17584 | March 8, 1922 | ROMUALDEZ, J. | De Leon

Doctrine. right to prosecute and punish crimes is an attributed of sovereignty
Facts:
The accused was driving an automobile at the rate of 30 miles an hour on a highway
6 meter wide, notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass a narrow space between
a wagon standing on one side of the road and a heap of stones on the other side
where the were two young boys, the appellant did not take the precaution required
by the circumstances by slowing his machine, and did not proceed with the vigilant
care that under the circumstances an ordinary prudent man would take in order to
avoid possible accidents that might occur, as unfortunately did occur, as his
automobile ran over the boy Porfirio Parondo who was instantly killed as the result
of the accident.
Coming now to the other assignments of error, it will be seen that they deal with the
fundamental questions as to whether or not Act No. 2886, under which the complaint
in the present case was filed, is valid and constitutional.
This Act is attacked on account of the amendments that it introduces in General
Orders No. 58, the defense arguing that the Philippine Legislature was, and is, not
authorized to amend General Orders No. 58, as it did by amending section 2 thereof
because its provisions have the character of constitutional law. Said section 2
provides as follows:
All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the United States
against the persons charged with the offenses. (G. O. No. 58, sec. 2 ).
Ruling: It follows that the provisions of this General Order (58) do not the nature of
constitutional law either by reason of its character or by reason of the authority that
enacted it into law. It cannot be said that it has acquired this character because this
order was made its own by the Congress of the United States for, as a mater of fact,
this body never adopted it as a law of its own creation.
It is urged the right to prosecute and punish crimes is an attributed of sovereignty.
(In this case it is delegated to the PH by the US)
No proof is required to demonstrate that the present Legislature had, and had, the
power to enact and amend laws.
There is not a single constitutional provision applicable to the Philippines prescribing
the name to be used as party plaintiff in criminal cases.
The fact that the political status of this country is as yet undetermined and in a
transitory stage, is responsible for the fact that there is no positive provision in our
constitutional law regarding the use of the name of the People of the Philippine
Islands, as party plaintiff, in criminal prosecutions, as is otherwise the case in the
respective constitutional charters of the States of the Union and incorporated
territories — a situation which must not be understood as depriving the Government
of the Philippines of its power, however delegated, to prosecute public crimes.
Furthermore, supposing for the sake of argument, that the mention of the People of
the Philippine Islands as plaintiff in the title of the information constitutes a vice or
defect, the same is not fatal when, as in the present case, it was not objected to in
the court below.

Act No. 2886, which amends it, by virtue of which the People of the Philippine Island (There are also several amendments in the past, in the General Order which was not
overturned by the US Congress, implying that it ratified the same.)
is made the plaintiff in this information, contains the following provisions in section
Note* this case also discussed how the Philippine Legislature has transformed, if you
1:
want to check
SECTION 1. Section two of General Orders, Numbered Fifty-eight, series of nineteen
hundred, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the
People of the Philippine Islands against the persons charged with the
offense."
Issue/s: W/N the amendment is proper therefore the Philippine Gov’t has a right to
prosecute.