LEGAL STANDING OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO SEEK REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF STRONG EVIDENCE OF GUILT:

     Actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, are, as a rule summarily dismissed. Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. But in that case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice." It is not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).