Case No.: G.R. No.

184337
Case Title: Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico v. Luisito Q. Gonzalez and Antonio T. Buenflor
Date: August 7, 2009

Summary of Facts:
- Federico C. Delgado found dead on March 11, 2007.
- Annalisa D. Pesico, present during the crime and injured, reported it to the police.
- Murder and frustrated murder charges filed against Luisito Q. Gonzalez and Antonio T. Buenflor.
- Various documents, sworn statements, and reports presented during preliminary investigation.

Issues:
1. Legal standing of petitioners, role of DOJ Secretary and City Prosecutor, and the binding effect of the
Amended Decision on the "People."
2. Whether the Amended Decision is final and subject to execution pending appeal.
3. Alleged reversible and whimsical errors committed by the Court of Appeals.

Ruling and Decision:

The Court's ruling focuses on the issue of standing and the finality of the Amended Decision.

- The petitioners argue their standing as siblings of the deceased. They claim Acting Secretary of Justice is a
nominal party, and Solicitor General's non-participation doesn't affect their standing.
- Respondents argue private offended parties lose standing after the preliminary investigation. They assert
Acting Secretary of Justice is the real party in interest.

Doctrine and Rules:

- The Court emphasizes the Solicitor General's role in representing the government in criminal proceedings.
- Definition of "criminal proceeding" includes preliminary investigation.
- Private complainants may file directly only in exceptional cases, such as denial of due process or when
questioning the civil aspect of a lower court's decision.
- The Solicitor General's failure to file within the prescribed period renders the Court of Appeals' decision final
in the criminal aspect.
- Procedural regularity is crucial, and belated participation by the Solicitor General is rejected.

Highlight of Rules, Laws, and Codes:

- Role of Solicitor General: Representing the government in criminal proceedings (Legal Provisions).
- Definition of "criminal proceeding" includes preliminary investigation.
- Exceptions for private complainants to file directly (Denial of due process, questioning civil aspect).
- Timely filing required for the Solicitor General to participate.

In conclusion, the Court denies the petition due to lack of standing by the private complainants, affirming the
Court of Appeals' Amended Decision. No pronouncement regarding costs. Justice Antonio T. Carpio delivers
the opinion.

The information provided does not explicitly mention the names or detailed profiles of the complainants and
respondents involved in this case. However, based on the context and arguments presented, we can infer
some information:

Complainants:
1. Petitioners: The individuals or parties filing the petition for certiorari. They are described as the real parties in
interest who are naturally expected to file a case for the death of their brother. Reference is made to Narciso v.
Sta. Romana-Cruz, suggesting that a sister of the deceased is considered a proper party-litigant.

Respondents:
1. Acting Secretary Devanadera: Mentioned as a public respondent in the case. The actions and decisions of
the Acting Secretary of Justice are central to the arguments presented by both parties.

2. Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa D. Pesico: These individuals are specifically named as parties
impleaded in the petition for certiorari filed by the respondents before the Court of Appeals.

Legal Representatives:
1. Solicitor General: The Office of the Solicitor General is referred to in the context of representing the
Government of the Philippines. The Solicitor General's role is discussed regarding the representation of the
State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Key Points:
- The case involves a criminal proceeding related to the death of the complainants' brother.
- The Acting Secretary of Justice, the Heirs of Federico C. Delgado, and Annalisa D. Pesico are key
respondents.
- The petitioners argue that the Acting Secretary of Justice is a nominal or pro forma party, and the Solicitor
General's non-participation is not a fatal defect.
- Issues revolve around probable cause, alleged grave abuse of discretion, and reversible errors in the
decisions of the Court of Appeals.
- The Solicitor General's role and its failure to appeal within the prescribed period are discussed in the context
of finality of decisions.

In this case, the term "criminal proceeding" is defined as "a proceeding instituted to determine a person’s guilt
or innocence or to set a convicted person’s punishment." The Court emphasizes that a criminal proceeding,
which includes a preliminary investigation, is not a mere formal or technical right but a substantive right. The
right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over for trial is crucial to protect the
constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused from any material damage. The Court highlights that no
criminal proceeding under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is brought to trial unless a preliminary
investigation is conducted. The definition is reinforced by citing relevant legal provisions, including Section 1(a)
of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which states that a criminal action shall be instituted by filing the complaint
with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the preliminary investigation.

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of who the real party in interest is. The Court emphasized
that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the private complainant or offended party's interest
is limited to the civil liability. The Court stated that if a criminal case is dismissed or if there is an acquittal, an
appeal from the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. The private
complainant or offended party may not appeal the criminal aspect but only the civil aspect of the case.

In this particular case, the Court noted that there was no decision promulgated on the merits by the lower
court, and the Informations had been quashed. Therefore, there was nothing for the private complainants or
offended parties to appeal on the civil aspect, as there was no longer any criminal case on which a civil case
could be impliedly instituted.
The Court further clarified that the Solicitor General is the only one authorized to bring or defend actions on
behalf of the State in all criminal proceedings before the appellate courts. The Court, in this instance, pointed
out that the Solicitor General's non-filing of a petition within the prescribed period rendered the decision of the
Court of Appeals final and executory with respect to the criminal aspect of the case.

In conclusion, the real party in interest in this case, as decided by the Supreme Court, is the State, represented
by the Solicitor General in criminal proceedings before the appellate courts. The private complainants or
offended parties do not have standing to file an appeal on the criminal aspect of the case once the Solicitor
General opts not to file a petition.

The Supreme Court discussed how a criminal proceeding is instituted in the context of this case. According to
Section 1(a) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, criminal actions shall be instituted for offenses where a
preliminary investigation is required pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 112 by filing the complaint with the proper
officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.

In this case, it was pointed out that the criminal action was instituted when Alejandro Yanquiling, Jr., Chief of
the Homicide Section of the Manila Police District (MPD), filed the Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila. The Complaint-Affidavit was supported by the sworn statement of the private
complainant, affidavits of consent from the heirs of the deceased, crime report, progress report, Scene of the
Crime Operatives (SOCO) report, and cartographic sketch.

The Court also emphasized that a preliminary investigation, though an executive function, is considered part of
a criminal proceeding. No criminal proceeding under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is brought to
trial unless a preliminary investigation is conducted. The Court underscored the importance of a scrupulously
conducted preliminary investigation to protect the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused.

Therefore, in the context of this case, the criminal proceeding was initiated through the filing of a complaint with
the proper officer, triggering the preliminary investigation process.