MARIO FL. CRESPO (PETITIONER) VS.HON. LEODEGARIO L.

MOGUL ET AL (RESPONDENTS)
GR NO. L-53373 JUNE 30, 1987 J. GANCAYCO 1. Asst fiscal de Gala with the approval of the provincial fiscal filed an info (estafa) against Crespo. 2. When the case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review[filed with the Secretary of Justice] of the resolution of the provincial fiscal 3. Presiding Judge Mogul denied the motion. MR denied. But the arraignment was deferred to afford time for peritioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court 4. Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused before the CA. 5. CA restrained mogul from proceeding until further orders of the court. 6. CA granted the writ and perpetually restrained the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment until the sec of justice resolved the petition for review. 7. Usec. Macaraig reversed the resolution of Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the info. 8. Private prosecutor given due time to file an opposition 9. Mogul denied the motion and set the schedule of the arraignment 10. Crespo then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or Temporary restraining order in the CA. This was denied. MR was filed but was also denied. 11. Hence, this petition for review (prays that said decision be reversed and set aside and Mogul be enjoined from enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment and trial in said criminal case and declare that his(crespos) obligation is purely civil. 12. 2nd div of SC, without giving due course to the petition (for review) required the respondents to comment on the petition (instead of motion to dismiss) within 10 days 13. Solgens Comment: petition be given due course 14. Respondent filed his reply to both (comment by solgen and comment on the petition) 15. Case was transferred to the court en banc 16. En banc: give due course to the petition 17. Petitioner and private respondent filed their respective briefs while the solgen filed a manifestation in lieu of briefCA decision be reversed and that Mogul be ordered to dismiss the info. ISSUE + Reasoning 1. WON the trial court actin on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the provincial fiscal upon instructions of the sec of justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial. [short version: WON Mogul can ignore the order of the Sec. to the fiscal to file a motion to dismiss the case and just proceed with the arraignment instead] a. General principle: Fiscal directs and controls the prosection of criminal actions whether commenced by complaint or information. Reason: to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. b. They have the duty to prosecute persons who according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their

c.

d. e.

f.

g.

h.

office. also they have the duty not to prosecute when after investigation, they become convinced that the evidence adduced is insufficient to establish a prima facie case Courts cannot interfere with the fiscals discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. They cannot force the fiscal to prosecute a proceeding if evidence is insufficient. They also cannot order the fiscal to prosecute or file an info within a certain period of time. Fiscal has the authority to ask for the dismissal of a case. If theres a clash between the Judge (who didnt investigate) and the Fiscal (who did), normally the Fiscal prevails BUT it is not without control or limitation (referring to the power of the Fiscal). Order of the fiscal, subject to approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor. It may also be elevated for review to the secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the action or opinion of the Fiscal. Sec of justice may direct that a motion to dismiss a case be filed in court or otherwise an info be filed in court. While it is true that the fiscal has the Quasi judicial discretion over the case, once the case had already been brought to court, whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the court, even when the motion to dismiss was ordered by the Sec. of Justice. Despite this, fiscal or prosecutor should still appear in behalf of the people of the Philippines. His role is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused before the courts. He cannot impose his own opinion, the court is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case. Sec of justice should as far as practicable refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the fiscal. (this part was cited in other cases)

Petition dismissed