Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People V Piccio

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    83 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of an appeal filed by private complainants against a trial court's order quashing criminal information for lack of jurisdiction in a libel case. Under the Administrative Code and jurisprudence, the authority to represent the State in criminal appeals belongs solely to the Office of the Solicitor General. Private complainants may only appeal aspects relating to civil liability without OSG intervention. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal filed without OSG conformity, as private complainants lacked legal standing to question the dismissal of criminal charges on behalf of the State.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    people v piccio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of an appeal filed by private complainants against a trial court's order quashing criminal information for lack of jurisdiction in a libel case. Under the Administrative Code and jurisprudence, the authority to represent the State in criminal appeals belongs solely to the Office of the Solicitor General. Private complainants may only appeal aspects relating to civil liability without OSG intervention. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal filed without OSG conformity, as private complainants lacked legal standing to question the dismissal of criminal charges on behalf of the State.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    People V Piccio

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of an appeal filed by private complainants against a trial court's order quashing criminal information for lack of jurisdiction in a libel case. Under the Administrative Code and jurisprudence, the authority to represent the State in criminal appeals belongs solely to the Office of the Solicitor General. Private complainants may only appeal aspects relating to civil liability without OSG intervention. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal filed without OSG conformity, as private complainants lacked legal standing to question the dismissal of criminal charges on behalf of the State.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People v.

    Piccio (2014): Jessie Gimenez, President of the The CA correctly dismissed the notice of appeal interposed by
    Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency — the advertising arm of petitioners against the RTC’s order because they, being mere private
    the Yuchengco Group of Companies, to which Malayan Insurance complainants, lacked the legal personality to appeal the dismissal of
    Company, Inc. is a corporate member — filed a Complaint-Affidavit the criminal case (i.e. quashal of the information on the ground of lack
    for libel before the City Prosecutor of Makati City against a group of jurisdiction). It is well-settled that the authority to represent the
    called the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is
    posting an online article entitled "Back to the Trenches: A Call to vested solely in the OSG which is the law office of the
    Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance with Coalition" which the Government. It’s specific powers and functions include that of
    Yuchengco Family found to be defamatory and libelous. The City representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in any
    Prosecutor found probable cause and filed the case with RTC action which affects the welfare of the people as justice may require.
    Makati. However, the Information was quashed for lack of The foregoing is expressed in Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III,
    jurisdiction. Respondents averred that it failed to allege where the Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. Jurisprudence further
    article was first printed and published or where the offended parties provides that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court
    reside which is needed in libel charges. Petitioners appealed the or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may
    decision to the CA while the OSG sought the DOJ’s endorsement on bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The
    whether it is the People or the private complainant that should file the private complainant may, however, file an appeal without the
    same. Although the respondents opposed this appeal for not having intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of
    the conforme of the OSG, petitioners claim that the latter is not the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for
    required when grave errors are committed by the trial court or where certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end
    there is lack of due process. The CA dismissed the appeal, leading of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case.
    to the case at bar.

    You might also like