The Supreme Court has denied a petition filed by private complainant Francisco O. Yasa seeking to overturn the acquittal of two accused in cyber libel cases, ruling that only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is authorized to appeal the criminal aspect of a case and that reviewing the acquittal would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy.
In its decision, the Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 13, 2023 and May 14, 2024 in CA-G.R. SP No. 180612.
The Case
Mary Jean was charged with two counts of Libel in relation to Section 4(c)(a) and Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 in two separate Informations (Criminal Case No. 2021-1115 and Criminal Case No. 2021-1116). Beberly was charged with one count of Libel in relation to the same provisions in an Information (Criminal Case No. 2021-1117).
The Informations alleged that on or about June 28, 2020, in the City of Paranaque, Metro Manila, the accused made public comments on Facebook posts about a Notice of the First Division of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 214308 (Francisco O. Yasa vs. The Honorable Fernanda Lamper Peralta, et al.). The prosecution claimed these comments created defamatory statements against private complainant Francisco O. Yasa.
During arraignment, Mary Jean and Beberly both pleaded "Not Guilty." Trial then ensued. The prosecution presented Emelita dela Cruz and the private complainant Francisco as witnesses.
Emelita testified that Mary Jean and Beberly are her co-workers in Vishay Philippines, Inc. and both officers of their union. She saw the comments and informed Francisco of the Facebook posts relating to him. On cross-examination, she admitted she was suspended for six months from Vishay Philippines, Inc., and that Francisco, her close friend, was terminated from the same company sometime in 2011. She confirmed that Francisco filed libel and unjust vexation cases against the union officers, but these were dismissed, and admitted that there was no name identified in the comments made by the accused.
Francisco confirmed he received information from Emelita regarding the posts and comments and decided to file the cases to protect his reputation.
Mary Jean and Beberly filed a Demurrer to Evidence with leave of court. In a Resolution dated August 10, 2023, the RTC granted the Demurrer to Evidence and acquitted them, concluding that the evidence presented was incomplete and unauthenticated and could not be given evidentiary weight.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether Francisco, as private complainant, could challenge the RTC's grant of the Demurrer to Evidence and the acquittal of the accused without the conformity of the OSG, and whether such an appeal would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that the private offended party or complainant may file an appeal without the conformity of the OSG only with respect to the civil aspect of the case. In his Petition, Francisco did not discuss the civil liability of the accused but focused on the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt for libel, making it evident his only intention was to challenge their acquittal — which is not permissible as only the OSG is authorized to prosecute the case on appeal.
The Court further held that the grant of the Demurrer to Evidence constitutes a judgment on the merits equivalent to an acquittal, which cannot be reviewed without violating the right against double jeopardy enshrined in Section 21, Article III of the Constitution.
The Court disposed: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions, dated October 13, 2023 and May 14, 2024, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 180612 are AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 273948 — the case before the Supreme Court
- June 28, 2020 — date of the alleged offenses
- Criminal Case Nos. 2021-1115, 2021-1116, 2021-1117 — the charges filed
- August 10, 2023 — RTC Resolution granting the Demurrer to Evidence
- October 13, 2023 and May 14, 2024 — the affirmed Court of Appeals Resolutions
- CA-G.R. SP No. 180612 — the Court of Appeals case number
- Six months — Emelita's suspension from Vishay Philippines, Inc.
- 2011 — year Francisco was terminated from the company
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant is limited to civil liability, and the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. Citing People v. Santiago, the Court reiterated that an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.
The Court noted that the RTC's grant of the Demurrer to Evidence amounts to an acquittal, and any further prosecution would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. Citing People v. Sandiganbayan, the Court explained that under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the grant or denial of a demurrer is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion.
The Court said the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion, such as when the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or the trial was a sham. In this case, there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion. The prosecution was able to present and formally offer its evidence, and the RTC judiciously and extensively examined it. Even if there was an error in the RTC's evaluation, it could not be rectified by a petition for review on certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 273948, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.