Double jeopardy and other legal principles — including the principle

that the victim of a crime is at most only the witness of the State that
is the real aggrieved party — were in issue before the Supreme Court
in a case entitled Austria v. AAA and BBB, GR 205275, promulgated
on June 28, 2022.

In the case cited, the court laid down the following rules that it
expressly provides "shall be prospective in application."

First: The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the
civil liability of the accused, or to file a petition for certiorari. On the
matter of the criminal liability of the accused, the private complainant
must request the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General —
or allege in the appeal or in the petition for certiorari the pendency of
such a request with the Office of the Solicitor General.

Clearly, the private complainant may then file the appeal or initiate an
action for certiorari with the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor
General, or pending action by the OSG on the request for conformity.
So, while in the past, it was believed — and taught to law students —
that only in exceptional cases where grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the acquitting judge can be shown would certiorari lie, now it
seems that an appeal is also available, subject of course to the
conformity of the Solicitor General.

Second: The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file a common
within a non-extendable period of 30 days from notice on the private
complainant's petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused, the dismissal of the criminal case and the interlocutory orders
in criminal proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Undeniably, these rules constitute a salutary development but they do

not, to my mind, go far enough. The rules categorically direct that
when the OSG withholds consent, then the appeal or the petition for
certiorari must be dismissed. Dismissed, notwithstanding the clarity
with which the error or the grave abuse of discretion is set forth? The
rule virtually transfers the power of judgment to the Office of the
Solicitor General, for in refusing consent or conformity to the appeal
or to the petition for certiorari filed by the victim, the real aggrieved
party, the OSG can cause an appeal or a petition for certiorari to be
dismissed.

There is, however, a door of recourse opened by these new rules that
was formerly closed. Common teaching was that against an acquittal,
only a petition for certiorari that met the vague, changing and arbitrary
standard of "grave abuse of discretion" would prosper. This time, the
phraseology of the rule — "The private complainant must request the
OSG's conformity within the reglementary period to appeal or file a
petition for certiorari" — then it seems that even appeals can now be
entertained, and on appeal, one may point out egregious errors in
findings of fact or assailable holdings of law.

The law evolves — and the rules enunciated by this decision

constitute a salutary development in jurisprudence, but it is as
essential that norms and rules are examined and revisited for the
philosophical assumptions they make and the premises on which they
rest, for some myths are in fact overstaying and do acquire a canonical
status with the passage of time, and their unctuous invocation by even
the most learned of professors and jurists.