Facts:

• The case involves petitioner Carmencita G. Cariño and respondent Merlin de Castro.
• On April 30, 2008, the Supreme Court rendered a decision on this matter.
• Cariño filed a complaint-affidavit for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against De Castro before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
• Assistant City Prosecutor Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr. found prima facie evidence and recommended De Castro's indictment, leading to charges of five counts of BP 22 violations before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 13.
• During the arraignment, De Castro expressed her intention to file a Motion for Preliminary Determination of Existence of Probable Cause, which was granted, deferring her arraignment.
• Cariño was required to file a comment on the motion but instead filed a motion for extension, which was denied as a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
• On August 30, 2004, the Metropolitan Trial Court found that the checks issued by De Castro were without valuable consideration and that Cariño was not authorized to collect rental payments, leading to the dismissal of the cases for lack of probable cause.
• Cariño appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision on February 28, 2005, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
• The court held that Cariño failed to counter the Joint-Affidavit by the property owners stating she was not authorized to lease the property or collect rentals.
• Consequently, the checks were deemed issued for a non-existing account or without legal consideration.
• Cariño's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 15, 2005.
• Cariño, through counsel and with the conformity of Assistant City Prosecutor Sawadjaan Issan, filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on August 18, 2006, because it was filed by the private prosecutor and not by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as required by law.
• The Court of Appeals emphasized that the OSG has the exclusive authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases.
• Cariño's motion for reconsideration was also denied on December 29, 2006, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
• The decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 18, 2006, and the resolution dated December 29, 200...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court held that in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General.
• This mandate is outlined in Presidential Decree No. 478 and the Revised Administrative Code, specifically Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12.
• The Court reiterated that the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.
• Although the petition for review before the Court of Appeals was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City Prosecutor, such conformity was insufficient as the rules and jurisprudence mandate that the petition should be filed by the Solicitor General.
• The Court noted that while a private prosecutor may intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal, their participation is ...continue reading