G.R. No. 89318 - Santiago vs. Anunciacion, Jr.

The petitioner, Atty. Mariano R. Santiago, a practicing attorney, was previously counsel for Rene Peralta in Criminal Case No. 89-3854 concerning a kidnapping charge against Amylie Rosalie Orozco.
Subsequent developments in that case arose when Amylie claimed she was not kidnapped but voluntarily went with Peralta, her boyfriend and the father of her unborn child.
The assistant city prosecutor was to submit Amylie’s sworn statement and recommend the dismissal of the kidnapping charge; Amylie was also expected to affirm her statement before the court.

While Amylie was in the courthouse in Quezon City, she was intercepted by alleged CIS agents and Quezon City policemen who served her a warrant of arrest in connection with a “disobedience” charge filed by her mother, Carolina Orozco.
Petitioner's involvement: Allegedly, Santiago requested that the peace officers defer the service of the warrant until after Amylie testified in court.
Following this intervention, after an interview was conducted in open court and subsequently in chambers with Judge Velasco, an accusation of indirect contempt was brought against the petitioner for obstructing the issuance and execution of the warrant against Amylie.

On July 11, 1989, the respondent judge directed the petitioner to answer a motion filed by Mrs. Orozco.
The petitioner responded on July 17, 1989, by filing a motion to dismiss, which the court treated as an answer.
On July 19, 1989, during the hearing, the petitioner objected to the entrance of Atty. Eleazar Ferry as a private prosecutor, arguing that no damage claim existed warranting the intervention of the offended party.
The respondent judge overruled the petitioner's objection, leading the petitioner to seek relief by raising the matter to a higher court.

On August 16, 1989, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued by the higher court, restraining the respondent judge and his agents from proceeding further with the trial of Criminal Case No. 89-XI-01 concerning the petition for contempt.
The sole question raised before the higher court was whether the appearance of the private prosecutor, Atty. Eleazar Ferry—on behalf of Mrs. Carolina Orozco—was proper and warranted.

Whether the intervention of the offended party by way of the appearance of a private prosecutor (Atty. Eleazar Ferry) in a contempt proceeding is justified under the existing rules on criminal procedure.
Whether the nature of the contempt charge—being inherently criminal—allows for the intervention of the offended party or should be exclusively under the direction and prosecution of the fiscal.
Whether the lower court correctly exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the intervention of a private prosecutor in a proceeding that is fundamentally penal in character and summary in nature.