Case Digest (A.M. No. P-04-1799)
Facts:
In the case of Lim Tek Goan vs. Honorable Nicasio Yatco (G.R. No. L-6286, December 29, 1953), the petitioner, Lim Tek Goan, was one of the offended parties in a criminal case for grave threats filed against Co Peng, alias Tony Tan, and others in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, presided over by Judge Nicasio Yatco. The accused was arraigned on August 7, 1952, with the trial initially set for September 19, 1952. On that date, the private prosecution requested a postponement, citing the illness of a witness. The court granted this motion, rescheduling the trial for October 17, 1952. When the new date arrived, the private prosecution sought another postponement on grounds of witness convenience, claiming they resided in San Pablo City. This motion was reluctantly accepted by the court after the defense and the assigned fiscal objected; however, they expressed their dissent clearly. On November 13, 1952, when counsel for the private prosecution failed to appear for trial once
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-04-1799)
Facts:
The case arose from a criminal action for grave threats initiated against Co Peng alias Tony Tan and others. The accused was arraigned on August 7, 1952, and a trial date was set on September 19, 1952, at the Court of First Instance of Laguna under the presiding Judge, Nicasio Yatco. During the trial, after the first prosecution witness testified, counsel for the private prosecution moved to postpone the trial due to the illness of the next witness, leading to a rescheduling for October 17, 1952, at Calamba, Laguna. When that date arrived, the prosecution again sought a continuance—this time to transfer the venue to San Pablo, alleging that all their witnesses and the accused resided in San Pablo City. Although the defense and the fiscal, David Carreon, objected—pointing out that the case had already been partially tried at Calamba—the trial continued. During the ensuing argument, counsel for the accused noted that since the private prosecutor was acting under the fiscal’s control, his appearance in the case was acceptable only by the court’s and parties’ tolerance. This prompted counsel for private prosecution to seek a definitive ruling on whether his participation was a matter of right. The trial judge ruled that in cases not involving any civil liability, the appearance of a private prosecutor was not a matter of right but merely allowed by the court’s tolerance. Despite stating that the counsel could continue to represent the client by such tolerance, counsel appealed, seeking certiorari on the ground that his right to intervene was being improperly negated.Issues:
- Whether an offended party in a criminal prosecution may intervene personally or through counsel as a matter of right or merely by the court’s tolerance.
- Whether the trial judge erred in characterizing the participation of the private prosecutor’s counsel as one allowed only upon the court’s tolerance in cases that do not involve civil liability.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)