6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of the essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa took place in Manila.[33] Section 9 of RA 8042, above-quoted, which states that an illegal recruitment case may also be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the crime, was likewise invoked in the said motion.[34] Respondent averred that the records show that at the time of the incident up to the present, she resides in Sampaloc, Manila.[35] Petitioner filed an Opposition[36] to the said motion. Respondent, through the public prosecutor, filed a Comment[37] thereon and a Reply[38] was then filed by the petitioner. In an Order[39] dated March 16, 2012, the RTC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, ruling that as stated in respondent's Sinumpaang Salaysay, the essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa took place in Kidapawan City and not in Manila. The allegation that several deposits for the payment of the placement fees were made in Manila is of no moment, according to the RTC, considering that the main transaction actually took place in Kidapawan City, which is the basis for determining the jurisdiction of the court. Thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Prosecution is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Orders of the Court both dated January 26, 2012 still stand. SO ORDERED.[40] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. In its assailed Decision, the CA discussed, first, the issue of respondent's legal personality to file the said petition and second, the RTC's jurisdiction over the case.[41] On the first issue, the CA ruled that while it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that may represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings before this Court or the CA, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his/her own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law.[42] The CA cited Section 1, Rule 122, which provides that the right to appeal from a final judgment or order in a criminal case is granted to any party except when the accused is placed thereby in double jeopardy.[43] It also cited this Court's ruling that the word party in the said provision must be understood to mean not only the government and the accused, but also other persons who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceeding.[44] The private complainant, having an interest in the civil aspect of the case, thus, may file such action in his/her name to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 5/16