CRESPO v. MOGUL

FACTS: An information for estafa was filed against Mario Crespo. 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 for the filing of the information. The presiding judge, Leodegario Mogul denied the motion but the arraignment was deferred to afford time for petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court. Crespo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a writ of injunction in the CA to restrain respondent judge from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused. The Solicitor General recommended that the petition be given due course and the CA granted the same.

Meanwhile, Undersecretary of Justice Catalino Macaraig reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against Crespo. A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was filed by the Provincial Fiscal with the RTC, but the respondent judge denied the same and set the date and time for the arraignment. Crespo then filed in the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus with TRO to restrain Mogul from enforcing his judgment, which was again issued by the CA. Later on, the CA rendered a decision and dismissed the petition of Crespo and lifted the TRO. Hence this present petition.

ISSUE/S:

1. W/N a fiscal has the authority to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence after the information has been submitted to the court?

2. W/N Mogul acted with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the arraignment of the accused?

HELD:

1. Yes, but it must be with the permission of the judge.

2. No, the court acquires jurisdiction of the accused upon the filing of the information by the fiscal.

It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal’s discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so and Courts that grant the same commit no error. The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigation show either that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt. However, such authority is not without any limitation. The same is subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal and it may be elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice. Consequently the Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the case be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be filed in Court. The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. In order to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review from the action of the fiscal, when the information has already been filed in Court.