In criminal cases, it has long been settled that there are two offended parties. First is the State, for every crime is deemed an affront to the peace, order, and stability of society. Second is the private offended party—the individual directly injured by the criminal act.
Accordingly, when a criminal action is filed, courts address two distinct aspects: (i) the criminal aspect, which determines whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposes the corresponding penalty; and (ii) the civil aspect, which fixes the damages owed to the victim as a consequence of the crime. Despite the presence of these two aspects, criminal prosecutions remain subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
There are instances, however, when the accused is acquitted. Ordinarily, only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may assail the criminal aspect of the case.
This rule rests on clear rationale: the dismissal of a criminal action affects the State, not the private complainant. The private offended party’s legal interest is confined to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant’s participation is limited to that of a witness. Thus, where the trial court dismisses the case or acquits the accused, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the OSG, while the private complainant may appeal only as to the civil aspect (Cu v. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567, 26 September 2018).
Even so, jurisprudence has shown instances where the private offended party was permitted to challenge an acquittal, dismissal, or interlocutory order without the OSG’s conformity. In People v. Judge Santiago (G.R. No. 80778, 20 June 1989), the Court ruled that a private offended party may resort to certiorari to assail an invalid acquittal. Likewise, in Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. (G.R. No. 126210, 09 March 2000), the Court held that a private complainant may seek reconsideration and, thereafter, certiorari to challenge a dismissal tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court in Austria v. AAA and BBB (G.R. No. 205275, 28 June 2022) recognized the need to harmonize seemingly divergent case law. Exercising its exclusive rule-making authority, the Court laid down a definitive and edifying framework governing the legal standing of private offended parties in assailing rulings in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
The Court formulated the following guidelines:
(1) The private offended party has legal personality to appeal the civil aspect or file a petition for certiorari to protect their pecuniary interest. The remedy must specifically allege such interest. Failure to do so may result in denial or dismissal. If resolution of the remedy will unavoidably touch upon the criminal aspect, the reviewing court must require the OSG to file a comment within thirty (30) days, indicating whether it concurs with the private complainant’s remedy. Judgments rendered without giving the OSG the opportunity to comment may be set aside.
(2) The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file certiorari involving the criminal aspect or the right to prosecute unless the OSG expressly conforms. Such conformity must be sought within the reglementary period. If granted, the OSG’s written conformity must be attached. If pending, the fact must be alleged. If the OSG denies conformity, the remedy shall be dismissed.
(3) If the private complainant files certiorari questioning an acquittal, dismissal, or interlocutory order on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, the reviewing court must likewise require the OSG to comment within thirty (30) days.
(4) These guidelines apply prospectively.
Through Austria v. AAA, the Supreme Court brought long-needed coherence to the private offended party’s standing in criminal proceedings. It reaffirmed the primacy of the State in criminal prosecutions while safeguarding the victim’s civil interests—striking a careful balance between orderly criminal procedure and the victim’s right to meaningful participation.
