a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
TIU vs. COURT OF APPEALS 586 SCRA 118
The instant controversy stemmed from a criminal charge for slight physical injuries filed by respondent Edgardo Postanes (Postanes) against Remigio Pasion (Pasion). On the other hand, petitioner David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave threats against Postanes before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City for poking a gun and utterring a threatening words. However, the MeTC dismissed both charges for Slight Physical Injuries and the counter-charge of Grave Threats for insufficiency of evidence. Tiu, through his counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of Pasay City and rendered a Decision declaring void the judgment of the MeTC. Postanes moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC, he then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari challenging the decision of the RTC. The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision, reversing the RTC Decision and affirming the dismissal of Grave Threats. The Court of Appeals held that the RTC "has granted upon the State, through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the right to appeal the decision of acquittal which right the government does not have." The prosecution had not been denied by the MeTC of its right to due process. Hence, it was wrong for the RTC to declare the findings of the MeTC as having been arrived at with grave abuse of discretion, thereby denying Postanes of his Constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Whether or not, there was double jeopardy when Tiu filed a petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of Postanes by the MeTC.
Yes, at the outset, the Supreme Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor General. Instead, it was filed by Tiu,, through his counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Tiu is without legal personality to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor General represents the People in this appeal before this Court. On this ground alone, the petition must fail. Clearly, for this Court to grant the petition and order the MeTC to reconsider its decision, just what the RTC ordered the MeTC to do, is to transgress the Constitutional proscription not to put any person "twice x x x in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." Further, as found by the Court of Appeals, there is no showing that the prosecution or the State was denied of due process resulting in loss or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the MeTC, which would have allowed an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal of the criminal case.