LA.

JIMENEZ V SORONGAN
G.R. No. 178607 December 05, 2012 J. Brion
Rule 110, Section 5 Created by: Ben E.
Petitioner Respondents
Dante La. Jimenez, President and Hon. Edwin Sorongon (Presiding Judge RTC
representative of Unlad Shipping & Management Mandaluyong City),
Corporation
Socrates Antzoulatos, Carmen Alamil,
Marceli Gaza And Markos Avgoustis, some of
the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime
Services, Inc. (TMSI)
Recit Ready Summary

Petitioner filed a complaint with the city prosecutor in Mandaluyong City against the respondents for
syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.

When an information was filed to the RTC, respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial
determination of probable cause with a request to defer enforcement of the warrants of arrest. RTC
treated respondent Alamil’s motion for judicial determination as a motion to dismiss for lack of
probable cause. RTC dismissed the case, as well as the MR, as it found no evidence of giving any
false information on record and that respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction
through the filing of pleadings seeking affirmative relief.

On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition and the motion for reconsideration for lack of legal
personality to file the petition on behalf of the People of the Philippines. It held that the petitioner
has no legal standing to assail the dismissal of the case as petitioner is not the real party in interest
to institute the case. Petitioner was just a competitor and not a victim of the crime charged to the
respondents.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA ruling adding that the petitioner 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. The right to prosecute pertains exclusively to the People,
as represented by the OSG, pursuant to the Administrative Code, and does not belong to the
petitioner.

Facts of the Case

1. Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City against
the respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment saying that the
respondents falsely represented their stockholdings in TMSI’s to secure a license to operate
as a recruitment agency from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).

2. A 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for syndicated
and large scale illegal recruitment. The City Prosecutor subsequently filed a motion to
withdraw but to no avail since the RTC found the existence of a probable cause.

3. Respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause with a
request to defer enforcement of the warrants of arrest. Petitioner filed his opposition with a
motion to expunge, contending that respondent Alamil, being a fugitive from justice, had
no standing to seek any relief and that the RTC already found probable cause to hold the
respondents for trial.

4. RTC treated respondent Alamil’s motion for judicial determination as a motion to dismiss for
lack of probable cause. It found:
 a. no evidence on record to indicate that the respondents gave any false information
to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the POEA; and
b. that respondent Alamil voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s jurisdiction through the
filing of pleadings seeking affirmative relief.

Thus, the RTC dismissed the case, and set aside the earlier issued warrants of arrest.

5. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. RTC denied. Petitioner appealed to the CA.

6. CA dismissed the petition for lack of legal personality to file the petition on behalf of the
People of the Philippines. It held that the petitioner was not the real party in interest to
institute the case, him not being a victim of the crime charged to the respondents, but a
mere competitor in their recruitment business. CA also dismissed the motion for
reconsideration.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N petitioner has legal standing to assail the dismissal of the criminal case No
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case. It is well-
settled that 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.

Procedural law provides 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, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code.

2. 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.

3. In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal
case since the main issue raised by the petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case
or the existence of probable cause. The petitioner 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.

4. A rare occasion when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on
his own behalf: denial of due process. This is not present in the case at bar.
Disposition
Appeal denied. The twin resolutions of the CA are affirmed.
Separate Opinions
NA