6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he/she may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said complainant. (emphasis supplied) Moreover, there have been occasions when this Court has allowed the offended party to pursue the criminal action on his/her own behalf, as when there is a denial of due process as in this case.[76] Indeed, the right of offended parties to appeal or question an order of the trial court which deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy.[77] At this juncture, We also uphold the CA's finding that double jeopardy does not exist in this case. Inasmuch as the dismissal of the charges by the RTC was done without regard to due process of law, the same is null and void.[78] It is as if there was no acquittal or dismissal of the case at all, and the same cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy.[79] Also, it is elementary that double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) he/she is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent.[80] Thus, as found by the CA, double jeopardy does not attach in this case as the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioner. To be sure, no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA by the respondent, as well as the grant thereof by the CA. In fine, the dismissal of the cases below was patently erroneous and as such, invalid for lack of fundamental requisite, that is, due process[81]. For this reason, this Court finds the recourse of the respondent to the CA proper despite it being brought on her own and not through the OSG. Besides, such technicality cannot prevail over the more fundamental matter, which is the violation of the right to due process resulting from the RTC's patent error. Nothing is more settled than the principle that rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings.[82] Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.[83] As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally construed.[84] Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice.[85] The relaxation or suspension of procedural elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 10/16