G.R. No. 114302 September 29, 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. CA ILO O. ONTESA, !R.

, "# Pre#$%$&' !(%'e, Re'$o&") Tr$") Co(rt, *r"&+, 19, ")o)o#, *()"+"&, APOLONIO CR-. "&% *ERNAR/A CR-., respondents.

/A0I/E, !R., J.: The core issue raised in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Court is whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Criminal Case o. !"6#$%$#& immediatel' after the arraignment of the accused$private respondents on the basis of the resolution of the (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor recommending the dismissal of the case despite the disapproval of such resolution b' the )rovincial )rosecutor. This petition was filed b' the private prosecutor with the conformit' of the )rovincial )rosecutor of *ulacan, +iberato +. Re'es. Concededl', it is defective in form. *ut, in view of the gravit' of the error allegedl' committed b' the respondent Judge, we re,uired a comment from the office of the -olicitor .eneral, the law office of the .overnment authori/ed b' law to represent the .overnment in this Court and in the Court of (ppeals in all criminal proceedings and to act and represent the Republic or the )eople of the )hilippines before an' court, tribunal, bod', or commission in an' matter, action, or proceeding which, in the opinion of the -olicitor .eneral, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice ma' re,uire. 1 0e had done so in previous cases. 2 1n its Comment 3 filed on 2" 3ctober !##", the 3ffice of the -olicitor .eneral adopted the petition as its own and incorporated a supplement thereto. The private respondent4s comment was filed onl' on 2& June !##5. The factual and procedural antecedents which gave rise to this case are uncomplicated. 3n 6 Jul' !##&, an information was filed with the Regional Trail Court 5RTC6 of *ulacan charging private respondents (polonio Cru/ and *ernarda Cru/ with the crime of falsification of public document, committed as follows7
839n or about the !:th da' of Januar', !##!, in the municipalit' of %alolos, province of *ulacan, )hilippines, and within the jurisdiction of this ;onorable Court, the . . . accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutuall' helping each other, did then and there wilfull', unlawfull' and feloniousl' prepare or cause to be prepared a document denominated as <=asulatan ng =aloobpala<

making it appear therein that the same was e>ecuted and signed b' the spouses Cenon Constantino and -otera de la Cru/ and that said persons personall' appeared before otar' )ublic -antiago +. +inda'ag and acknowledged the same to be their own free act and deed, when in truth and in fact, as said accused well knew, said document was neither e>ecuted and signed b' the aforementioned Cenon Constantino and -otera de la Cru/, nor did the' ever appear before the abovenamed notar' public for the purpose of acknowledging the same as said spouses were alread' dead at the time of the alleged e>ecution of said document, to the damage and prejudice of public interest. 4

The case was docketed as Criminal Case o. !"6#$%$#& in *ranch !# of the said court which is presided b' the respondent Judge. (rraignment was set on !# 3ctober !##&. 5 3n ? 3ctober !##&, the private respondents filed with the trial court a petition for reinvestigation 1 premised on the ground that <after the information was filed, material and relevant evidence was discovered which, if presented in a reinvestigation, will certainl' alter the earlier finding of probable cause b' the office of the )rovincial )rosecutor thereb' avoiding a prolonged litigation which is disadvantageous to all concerned.< 3n !2 3ctober !##&, the respondent Judge issued an order 2 granting the petition for reinvestigation, remanding the case to the 3ffice of the )rovincial )rosecutor for purposes of reinvestigation, and cancelling the scheduled arraignment on !# 3ctober !##&. (t the reinvestigation conducted b' (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor @dsel %. Rutor, the accused presented what it considered new material and relevant evidence which consists merel' of an affidavit of Aeli/a Constantino who declared that she was the one responsible for the preparation of the ,uestioned public document. 1n his resolution of !" Becember !##&, 3 Rutor recommended the dismissal of the case because7
8T9he issue is now moot with the admission b' Aeli/a Constantino in an affidavit submitted onl' on ovember !##&, wherein she made clear that she is the one responsible for the preparation of the document subject matter of this case, . . . the accused spouses have no participation in the preparation of the same.

)rovincial )rosecutor +iberato Re'es disapproved the recommendation and the made of the following handwritten note below the signature of Rutor on the last page of the latter4s resolution7
Feliza Constantino did not admit having done the falsification . (s vendor she merel' warrants the good title that transferred to the vendee C she assumes responsibilit' therefor. ;ence, the Court C not this office is in a better position to resolve the issue of whether the accused are the perpetrators of the falsification. We should present

our evidence that makes out a prima facie case & let the Court decide , not this office pre-empting the prerogative of the Court . 9 5emphasis supplied6

onetheless, in obvious disregard of the adverse stand of the )rovincial )rosecutor, Rutor submitted his resolution to the trial court. 3n 22 Becember !##&, the respondent Judge ordered the arraignment of the private respondents. The' pleaded not guilt'. Aorthwith, the trial court issued an order 10 dismissing criminal Case o. !"6#$%$#& on the basis of the Rutor resolution The order reads7
*efore the Court is the Resolution of the (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor for the dismissal of the case, however, the )rovincial )rosecutor deemed it wise to endorse to the Court the propriet' of resolving the case at bar. *oth accused after having been arraigned and informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entered a plea of 3T .D1+TE. The facts of the case, in brief, showed that both accused (polonio Cru/ and *ernarda Cru/ were charged with the offense of <Aalsification of )ublic Bocument< as provided for under (rt. !F2 of the Revised )enal Code in conjunction with (rt. !F! thereof. -otera dela Cru/ at the time of her death was the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at *arrio )ritil, .uiguinto, *ulacan and covered b' TCT o. T$2?!26". Aollowing her death on Aebruar' !, !#?#, one of the heirs of the deceased, Aeli/a Constantino, sold her share to accused spouses for )2::,:::.:: pursuant to e>trajudicial settlement with sale 5=asulatan ng )agmamana sa +abas ng ;ukuman6. 1n lieu of presenting the said document to the Register of Beeds for purposes of transfer of said propert' to the vendees 5accused spouses (polonio and *ernarda Cru/6, however, a document denominated as <=asulatan ng =aloobpala< dated Januar' !:, !##! to which both accused affi>ed their signatures as well as the vendee4s parents -otera dela Cru/ and Constantino Cru/ despite their death long before the e>ecution of said document, was the one presented to the Register of Beeds. )ursuant therewith, TCT o. T$2?!26" in the name of -otera dela Cru/ was cancelled and in lieu thereof, a new certificate of title TCT o. T$!:!F? was issued in favor of the accused. Conformabl' with the foregoing circumstances, accused spouses are charged with the offense of Aalsification of )ublic Bocument. Aeli/a Constantino, one of the two legitimate children of deceased -otera dela Cru/, e>pressl' admitted having sold her share of !,:&" s,uare meters to accused spouses for a valuable consideration pursuant to <=asulatan ng )agmamana sa +abas ng ;ukuman na ma' *ilihan<, however, a certain person instead whom she did not identif', caused the e>ecution of a document of <=asulatan ng =aloobpala< and used the same to effect the transfer of the propert' to accused spouses. 1t is indubitabl' established that the propert' subject of the alleged falsification of public document was actuall' sold to accused spouses for a valuable consideration b' one of the heirs of deceased -otera dela Cru/ pursuant to <)agmamana sa +abas ng ;ukuman<G that accused the spouses are not directl' involved in the preparation of said <=asulatan ng =aloobpala<G and that the person other than the accused was instrumental in the preparation of said document and who facilitated the transfer of said propert' to accused spouses.

The e>press admission b' the sister of the complainant that she sold her share to accused spouses for a valuable consideration and that the latter have no hand in the alleged falsification of public document are material and of the great probative value and the same should be given persuasive effect and credence in judicious assessment of the case at bar. The said admission for all legal intents and purposes e>onerates both accused of the offense charged. (ccordingl', there is grave doubt to hold the accused criminall' liable for the offense charged in the 1nformation. The doubt as to the liabilit' of the accused is evident b' the varied and contradictor' findings of the (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutors. 1n the absence, therefore, of a clear and convincing proof to establish the guilt of the accused be'ond reasonable doubt, as pra'ed for the (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor for the dismissal of the case and finding the motion tenable, the same be given due course.

3n 5 Januar' !##", the private prosecutor, (tt'. @dwin ). Cere/o, who received a cop' of the dismissal order on 2? Becember !##&, filed a motion for its reconsideration. 11 ;e alleged therein that the Rutor resolution was not approved b' the )rovincial )rosecutor who, on the contrar', directed (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor Rutor to proceed with the presentation of the evidence for the prosecutionG and that the unapproved resolution did not invalidate of modif' the information alread' filed, neither did it serve as basis for the court4s order summaril' dismissing the case. ;e further alleged that since the court had arraigned the accused, it should have, pursuant to the Rules, scheduled the case for pre$trial and trial. (t the hearing of the motion for reconsideration on !! Januar' !##", (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor Rutor vehementl' opposed it on the ground that the private prosecutor has no personalit' to intervene in the proceedings and that the motion was a mere scrap of paper for lack of his <5Rutor4s6 conformit'. The respondent Judge forthwith denied the motion. 12 3n !2 Januar' !##", the )rovincial )rosecutor and the private prosecutor jointl' filed another motion to reconsider 13 the dismissal order of 22 Becember !##&. The' alleged therein that7
2. This ;onorable Court based its 3rder of dismissal on the Resolution of the (sst. )ublic )rosecutor @dsel %. Rutor dated Becember !", !##&, recommending for its dismissalG &. -aid Resolution of (sst. )ros. @dsel %. Rutor was not approved b' the undersigned )rovincial )rosecutor as he is convinced that a prima facie case e>isted against the accused, instead, he directed (sst. )ros. @dsel %. Rutor to proceed with the presentation of the prosecution evidence in courtG ". The determination of the e>istence of a prima facie case b' the 3ffice of the )rovincial )rosecutor for the purposes of filing information in the court must be respected b' this ;onorable Court, and it is be'ond its jurisdiction to interfere with the said findings, more so when an information had alread' been filed in court, as in the present caseG

5. Aor another, accused were alread' arraigned on the crime charged in the 1nformation dated June !?, !##&, 'et this ;onorable Court summaril' dismissed the case solel' based on the unapproved Resolution of )ros. Rutor not on the evidence as no evidence has 'et been presented b' the partiesG 6. Dnder the Rules, after arraignment of the accused had been made, )re$trial and Trial will followG

The' then pra'ed that on the order of dismissal be set aside and the case be set for pre$trial and trial. 1n his order of ! Aebruar' !##", 14 the respondent Judge denied the aforesaid motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time as a cop' of the order of dismissal was received b' (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor Rutor on 22 Becember !##&, and he declared that the motion for reconsideration earlier filed b' the private prosecutor <is of no moment as 8it9 does not have the imprimatur of the (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor and perforce does not affect the running of the prescriptive period.< ;ence, this petition which was filed on 25 %arch !##" b' the private complainant, through the private prosecutor, with the approval of )rovincial )rosecutor +iberato +. Re'es. The petition is impressed with merit. The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, an' disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or ac,uittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. 0hile the prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, he cannot impose his opinion on the court. The court is the best and the sole judge on what to do with the case. (ccordingl', a motion to dismiss the case filed b' the prosecutor before or after the arraignment, or after a reinvestigation, or upon instructions of the -ecretar' of Justice who reviewed the records upon reinvestigation, should be addressed to the discretion of the court. The action of the court must not, however, impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the )eople to due process of law. 15 1n the instant case, the respondent Judge granted the motion for reinvestigation and directed the 3ffice of the )rovincial )rosecutor of *ulacan to conduct the reinvestigation. The former was, therefore, deemed to have deferred to the authorit' of the prosecution arm of the .overnment to consider the so$called new relevant and material evidence and determine whether the information it had filed should stand. ;aving done so, it behooved the respondent Judge to wait for a final resolution of the incident. 1n Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, 11 this Court ruled7
(ccordingl', we rule that the trial court in a criminal case which takes cogni/ance of an accused4s motion for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and defers the arraignment until resolution of the said

motion must act on the resolution of the said motion must act on the resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor4s finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon onl' upon proof that such resolution is alread' final in that no appeal was taken thereon to the Bepartment of Justice.

The resolution of (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor Rutor recommending the dismissal of the case never became final, for it was not approved b' the )rovincial )rosecutor. 3n the contrar', the latter disapproved it. (s a conse,uence, the final resolution with respect to the reinvestigation is that of the )rovincial )rosecutor, for under -ection ", Rule !!2 of the Rules of Court, no complaint or information ma' be filed or dismissed b' an investigating fiscal or chief state prosecutor. (lso, under -ection !5d6 of R.(. o. 5!?:, 12 as amended b' ).B. o. FF and ).B. o. #!!7
8 9o assistant fiscal or state prosecutor ma' file an information or dismiss a case e>cept with the prior authorit' or approval of the provincial or cit' fiscal or Chief -tate )rosecutor. . . .

The )rovincial )rosecutor4s opinion that the prosecution should present its <evidence that makes out a prima facie case< clearl' indicate that he was convinced that there is at the ver' least a reasonable ground to believe that the crime of falsification was committed and the private respondents are probabl' guilt' thereof. The findings and conclusion of the )rovincial )rosecutor, being the final disposition on the reinvestigation, should have been the sole and onl' valid basis for the respondent Judge4s final action with respect to the reinvestigation in the light of the foregoing provisions of the Rules of Court and R.(. o. 5!?:, as amended, and the ruling in %arcelo. The respondent Judge must have miscomprehended or misunderstood the notation of the )rovincial )rosecutor that <the court C not this office is in a better position to resolve the issue of whether the accused are the perpetrators of the falsification< as a carte blanche to act on the resolution and recommendation of Rutor. ;e closed his e'es to the )rovincial )rosecutor4s stand the prosecution should present its evidence <that makes out a prima facie case and let the court decide,< which simpl' means that the case should not be dismissed on the basis of Rutor4s recommendation. The Rutor resolution was rendered valueless because of the )rovincial )rosecutor4s approval thereof. 1n submitting it nonetheless to the court and moving for the dismissal of the case, Rutor showed outright disregard of the aforementioned provisions and ruling. -o did the respondent Judge when he dismissed the case on the basis of that resolution. Their disregard of the said provisions and ruling is condemnable, for it carries with it a whimsical and capricious bent that taints the e>ercise of discretion with grave abuse, thereb' rendering the whole act infirmed and void. -ince the )rovincial )rosecutor, to which the respondent Judge had deferred the matter of reinvestigation, had finall' resolved to stand on the information and to present evidence to prove the ,uilt of the private respondents for the crime charged, the respondent Judge did not have the option to dismiss the case on

the basis of the disapproved resolution of Rutor. ;is onl' option was to proceed with the arraignment of the accused and, thereafter, conduct a pre$trial and trial on the merits should the' enter a plea of not guilt'. 1t must be observed that, although the respondent Judge was convinced of Rutor4s recommendation to dismiss the case on the ground of want of probable cause because of the <admission< of Aeli/a Constantino that the accused spouses had no participation in the preparation of the ,uestioned document, he still ordered the arraignment of the private respondents. ;e seemed to have something in mind for the protection of the interest of the private respondents. )resumabl', he thought that the arraignment which was immediatel' followed b' the dismissal of the case would forever foreclose, on the ground of double jeopard', an' reopening of the case. Aor having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e>cess of jurisdiction thereb' depriving the -tate of due process of law or a fair opportunit' to present its evidence and prove its case, the challenged order of the respondent Judge dismissing Criminal Case o. !"6#$%$#& is a null and void. 13 0e thus set it aside and order the reinstatement of the information. ( few words are in order before we write finis to this case. This Court wonders wh' (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor @dsel %. Rutor disregarded the disapproval b' his superior, )rovincial )rosecutor +iberato Re'es, of his resolution recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case o. !"6#$ %$#&. (dditionall', he vigorousl' objected to the private prosecutor4s motion to reconsider the dismissal. -omething is wrong somewhere. The attention of the Bepartment of Justice must be called. (s stated in the beginning, the instant petition is defective in that it was initiated for the )eople b' the private prosecutor. The <conformit'< given b' the )rovincial )rosecutor did not make it an' less defective. This is an opportune time to remind litigants that in cases of this nature, the 3ffice of the -olicitor .eneral must be consulted and its assistance solicited. )rosecutors must not simpl' give conformit' to privatel' initiated petitionsG the' should also report the matter to the 3ffice of the -olicitor .eneral for appropriate action. 0;@R@A3R@, the instant petition is .R( T@B. The challenged orders of the respondent Judge of 22 Becember !##& dismissing Criminal Case o. !"6#$%$ #& and of ! Aebruar' !##" den'ing the motion for reconsideration jointl' filed b' the )rovincial )rosecutor and the private prosecutor are hereb' -@T (-1B@ for being null and void, and the trial court is hereb' directed to continue with the proceedings therein with purposeful dispatch.

+et a cop' of this Becision be furnished the -ecretar' of the Bepartment of Justice for him to take such appropriate action as ma' be necessar' against (ssistant )rovincial )rosecutor @dsel %. Rutor. -3 3RB@R@B. Padilla, ellosillo and !apunan ""#, concur#