8/20/2015

PhilippineCaseDigestsDatabank:MARIOFL.CRESPO,vs.HON.LEODEGARIOL.MOGULG.R.No.L53373,June30,1987

MARIOFL.CRESPO,vs.HON.LEODEGARIOL.MOGUL
G.R.No.L53373,June30,1987
Crespovs.Mogul
G.R.No.L53373,June30,1987
Doctrine:Itisacardinalprinciplethatallcriminalactionseithercommencedbycomplaintorby
informationshallbeprosecutedunderthedirectionandcontrolofthefiscal.Theinstitutionofa
criminalactiondependsuponthesounddiscretionofthefiscal.Thereasonforplacingthecriminal
prosecutionunderthedirectionandcontrolofthefiscalistopreventmaliciousorunfounded
prosecutionbyprivatepersons.
GANCAYCO,J.:
FACTS:
1.OnApril18,1977AssistantFiscalProcesoK.deGalawiththeapprovaloftheProvincial
FiscalfiledaninformationforestafaagainstMarioFl.CrespointheCircuitCriminalCourtof
LucenaCity.
2.Whenthecasewassetforarraignmenttheaccusedfiledamotiontodeferarraignmentonthe
groundthattherewasapendingpetitionforreviewfiledwiththeSecretaryofJusticeofthe
resolutionoftheOfficeoftheProvincialFiscalforthefilingoftheinformation.
3.InanorderofAugust1,1977,thepresidingjudge,HisHonor,LeodegarioL.Mogul,deniedthe
motion.AmotionforreconsiderationoftheorderwasdeniedintheorderofAugust5,1977butthe
arraignmentwasdeferredtoAugust18,1977toaffordtimeforpetitionertoelevatethematterto
theappellatecourt.
4.Apetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwithprayerforapreliminarywritofinjunctionwasfiledby
theaccusedintheCourtofAppeals.InanorderofAugust17,1977theCourtofAppeals
restrainedJudgeMogulfromproceedingwiththearraignmentoftheaccuseduntilfurtherordersof
theCourt.
5.InacommentthatwasfiledbytheSolicitorGeneralherecommendedthatthepetitionbegiven
duecourse.
6.OnMay15,1978adecisionwasrenderedbytheCourtofAppealsgrantingthewritand
perpetuallyrestrainingthejudgefromenforcinghisthreattocompelthearraignmentofthe
accusedinthecaseuntiltheDepartmentofJusticeshallhavefinallyresolvedthepetitionfor
review.
7.OnMarch22,1978thenUndersecretaryofJustice,Hon.CatalinoMacaraig,Jr.,resolvingthe
petitionforreviewreversedtheresolutionoftheOfficeoftheProvincialFiscalanddirectedthe
fiscaltomoveforimmediatedismissaloftheinformationfiledagainsttheaccused.
8.AmotiontodismissforinsufficiencyofevidencewasfiledbytheProvincialFiscaldatedApril
10,1978withthetrialcourt,attachingtheretoacopyoftheletterofUndersecretaryMacaraig,Jr.
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch3%20class%3D%22posttitle%20entrytitle%22%20itemprop%3D%22name%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A%200.75em

1/2

8/20/2015

PhilippineCaseDigestsDatabank:MARIOFL.CRESPO,vs.HON.LEODEGARIOL.MOGULG.R.No.L53373,June30,1987

InanorderofAugust2,1978theprivateprosecutorwasgiventimetofileanoppositionthereto.
9.OnNovember24,1978theJudgedeniedthemotionandsetthearraignment,statingthatthe
motionstrustbeingtoinducethisCourttoresolvetheinnocenceoftheaccusedonevidencenot
beforeitbutonthatadducedbeforetheUndersecretaryofJustice,amatterthatnotonly
disregardstherequirementsofdueprocessbutalsoerodestheCourtsindependenceand
integrity.
10.Theaccusedthenfiledapetitionforcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamuswithpetitionforthe
issuanceofpreliminarywritofprohibitionand/ortemporaryrestrainingorderintheCourtof
Appeals.
11.OnJanuary23,1979arestrainingorderwasissuedbytheCourtofAppealsagainstthe
threatenedactofarraignmentoftheaccuseduntilfurtherordersfromtheCourt.Inadecisionof
October25,1979theCourtofAppealsdismissedthepetitionandliftedtherestrainingorderof
January23,1979.
12.Amotionforreconsiderationofsaiddecisionfiledbytheaccusedwasdeniedinaresolution
ofFebruary19,1980.
13.Hencethispetitionforreviewofsaiddecision.Petitionerandprivaterespondentfiledtheir
respectivebriefswhiletheSolicitorGeneralfiledaManifestationinlieuofbriefreiteratingthatthe
decisionoftherespondentCourtofAppealsbereversedandthatrespondentJudgebeorderedto
dismisstheinformation.
ISSUE:Whetherthetrialcourt,actingonamotiontodismissacriminalcasefiledbythe
ProvincialFiscaluponinstructionsoftheSecretaryofJusticetowhomthecasewaselevatedfor
review,mayrefusetograntthemotionandinsistonthearraignmentandtrialonthemerits?
RULING:YES.
TheruleinthisjurisdictionisthatonceacomplaintorinformationisfiledinCourtanydisposition
ofthecaseasitsdismissalortheconvictionoracquittaloftheaccusedrestsinthesound
discretionoftheCourt.Althoughthefiscalretainsthedirectionandcontroloftheprosecutionof
criminalcasesevenwhilethecaseisalreadyinCourthecannotimposehisopiniononthetrial
court.TheCourtisthebestandsolejudgeonwhattodowiththecasebeforeit.The
determinationofthecaseiswithinitsexclusivejurisdictionandcompetence.Amotiontodismiss
thecasefiledbythefiscalshouldbeaddressedtotheCourtwhohastheoptiontograntordeny
thesame.Itdoesnotmatterifthisisdonebeforeorafterthearraignmentoftheaccusedorthat
themotionwasfiledafterareinvestigationoruponinstructionsoftheSecretaryofJusticewho
reviewedtherecordsoftheinvestigation.
InordertherefortoavoidsuchasituationwherebytheopinionoftheSecretaryofJusticewho
reviewedtheactionofthefiscalmaybedisregardedbythetrialcourt,theSecretaryofJustice
should,asfaraspracticable,refrainfromentertainingapetitionforrevieworappealfromthe
actionofthefiscal,whenthecomplaintorinformationhasalreadybeenfiledinCourt.Thematter
shouldbeleftentirelyforthedeterminationoftheCourt.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmeritwithoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch3%20class%3D%22posttitle%20entrytitle%22%20itemprop%3D%22name%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A%200.75em

2/2