Barry Lanier and Perlita v People of the Philippines G.R. No.

189176
By: Win Sancho

Facts:
The police operatives conducted a test-buy at petitioners residence in Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island where they
were able to purchase P5,000.00 worth of shabu and P1,000.00 worth of marijuana from petitioners. On the basis of
the test-buy operation, they were able to secure a search warrant from the RTC of Aklan.
A Receipt for Property Seized was prepared by SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan, but petitioners refused to sign the same.
Thereafter, petitioners were placed under arrest. The assistant prosecutor of Kalibo filed an Information charging the
petitioners. The petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information before the RTC of Kalibo but the RTC denied the
motion and remanded the case to the provincial prosecutor for preliminary investigation. The prosecutor upheld the
Information and directed the return of the records to the RTC for disposition.
Petitioners filed a petition for review before the DOJ. The Sec. of Justice favored the petitioner on the belief that the
evidences seized were planted. The secretary, in a Resolution, directed the prosecutor to withdraw the Information
before the RTC. RTC then granted the Motion to Withdraw Information by the prosecutor.
OSG filed to the CA a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Resolution of the DOJ. The CA found probable cause
to sustain the petitioners indictment and reinstated the Information against the petitioners. CA nullified and set
aside the DOJ Resolution and the Order of the RTC.

Issues:
WoN the CA erred in reversing the DOJ resolution which nullified the prosecutors resolution finding probable cause
to indict petitioners for illegal possession of prohibited drugs and the RTC Order granting the Motion to Withdraw the
Information.

Ruling:
No. The CA did not commit any reversible error.
In Crespo v Mogul, the Court held that once a criminal Complaint or Information is filed in court, any disposition of
the case, dismissal, acquittal or conviction rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the
trial court. The rule applies to a Motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case even before or after the
arraignment of the accused.
When the Secretary of Justice made a determination and concluded that the evidences were planted, he went into
the merits of the defense and exceeded his jurisdiction.
On the part of the RTC, it having acquired jurisdiction over the case, is not bound by the Resolution of the DOJ but is
required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial. While the Secretarys ruling is persuasive, it is not
binding on courts.