462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL.

151, JUNE 30, 1987 463

Crespo vs. Mogul Crespo vs. Mogul
* case where it is necessary for the Courts to do so for the orderly
No. L-53373. June 30, 1987. administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the
MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner, vs. HON. LEODEGARIO law in an oppressive and vindictive manner.
L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT Same; Once an information is filed in court, the courts prior
OF LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF permission must be secured if fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case.
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose
GENERAL, RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents. of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the
prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the
Criminal Procedure; A court that grant a motion of the fiscal to information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said
dismiss a case commits no error and the fiscals view thereon, in a information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in
clash of views with the judge or complainant, should normally prevail. Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the
Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After
evidence has authority to do so, and Courts that grant the same commit such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should
no error. The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While it is true that the
the dismissal should the re-investigation show either that the defendant is fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a
innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already
doubt. In a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be
the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of
defendant, those of the fiscals should normally prevail. On the other the Court, The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not
hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ of prohibition impair the substantial rights of the accused, or the right of the People to
may be issued by the Courts to restrain a criminal prosecution except in due process of law.
the extreme
_______________ Same; Same.Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and
* EN BANC. whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the
Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the
Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or
deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper
determination of the case,
Same; Where the court refuses to grant the fiscals motion to
dismiss, including a case where the Secretary of Justice ordered the
fiscal to move to dismiss the case, the fiscal should continue to appear
in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to
the private prosecutor.However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses
to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of the
Secretary of Justice will there not be a vacuum in the prosecution? A
state prosecutor to handle the case cannot possibly be designated by the
Secretary of Justice who does not believe that there is a basis for
prosecution nor can the fiscal be expected to handle the prosecution of
the case thereby defying the superior order of the Secretary of Justice.
The answer is simple. The
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 161, JUNE 30, 1987 465
Crespo vs. Mogul Crespo vs. Mogul
role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that justice is
done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused raignment was deferred to August 18, 1977 to afford 3
time for
before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court.
duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the
independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or Court 4of Appeals that was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing 06978. In an order of August 17, 1977 the Court of Appeals
for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment
less should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands 5

of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and of the accused until further orders of the Court. In a comment
void. The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the that was filed by the Solicitor6 General he recommended that the
prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence petition be given due course. On May 15, 1978 a decision was
to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control. rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and
perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to
PETITION to review the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the
of Lucena City. Mogul, J. Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for
7
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. review,
GANCAYCO, J.: On March 22, 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.
Catalino Macaraig, Jr.. resolving the petition for review reversed
The issue raised in this case is whether the trial court acting on a the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed
motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal the fiscal to move for immediate
8
dismissal of the information
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case filed against the accused. A motion to dismiss for insufficiency
was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and of evidence was filed by9 the Provincial Fiscal dated April 10,
insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. 1978 with the trial court, attaching thereto a copy of the letter
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with of Undersecretary Macaraig, Jr. In an order of August 2, 1978
the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for the private
10
prosecutor was given time to file an opposition
estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of thereto. On November 24, 1978 the Judge denied the motion
Lucena City which was 1docketed as Criminal Case No. and set the arraignment stating:
CCCIX-52 (Quezon) 77. When the case was set for ORDER
arraignment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on For resolution is a motion to dismiss this case filed by the prosecuting
the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed fiscal premised on insufficiency of evidence, as suggested by the
with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of Undersecretary of Justice, evident from Annex A of the mo
the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. In an order _______________
of August 1,1977, the presiding judge, His Honor, Leodegario 3 Annex D to Annex E; p. 72, supra.
2
L. Mogul, denied the motion. A motion for reconsideration of 4 Annex E to Annex E; pp. 73108, supra.
5 Annex F to Annex C; p. 109, supra.
the order was denied in the order of August 5, 1977 but the ar-
_______________ 6 Annex G to Annex E; pp. 110118, Rollo.
1 Copy of information, Annex A to Annex E; pp. 5455, Rollo. 7 Annex H to Annex E; pp. 119129, supra.
2 Annex C to Annex E; pp. 7071, Rollo. 8 Annex I to Annex E; pp. 130132, supra.
9 Annex J to Annex E; pp. 133139, supra.
10 Annex K to Annex E; p. 140, supra.
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 151, JUNE 30, 1987 467
Crespo vs. Mogul Crespo vs. Mogul
tion wherein, among other things, the Fiscal is urged to move for In a resolution of May 19,1980, the Second Division of this
dismissal for the reason that the check involved having been issued for Court without giving due course to the petition required the
the payment of a pre-existing obligation the liability of the drawer can respondents to comment to the petition, not to file a motion to
only be civil and not criminal.
The motions thrust being to induce this Court to resolve the
dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. In the comment filed
innocence of the accused on evidence not before it but on that adduced by the Solicitor General he recommends that the petition be
before the Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that not only disregards the given due course, it being meritorious. Private respondent
requirements of due process but also erodes the Courts independence through counsel filed his reply to the comment and a separate
and integrity, the motion is considered as without merit and therefore comment to the petition asking that the petition be dismissed. In
hereby DENIED. the resolution of February 5, 1981, the Second Division of this
WHEREFORE, let the arraignment be, as it is hereby set for Court resolved to transfer this case to the Court En Banc. In the
December 18, 1978 at 11
9:00 oclock in the morning. resolution of February 26, 1981, the Court En Banc resolved to
SO ORDERED. give due course to the petition.
The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and Petitioner and private respondent filed their respective briefs
mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of while the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in lieu of brief
prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the Court 12
of reiterating that the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
Appeals that was docketed as CA-G.R. No, SP08777. On be reversed and that respondent Judge be ordered to dismiss the
January 23, 1979 a restraining order was issued by the Court of information.
Appeals against the threatened act of13arraignment of the accused It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either
until further orders from the Court. In a decision of October commenced by complaint or by information17 shall be prosecuted
25, 1979 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition
14
and lifted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a
the restraining order of January 23, 1979. A motion for criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal.
reconsideration of said decision filed15by the accused was denied He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or
in a resolution of February 19, 1980. not follow that presented by the offended party, according to
Hence this petition for review of said decision was filed by whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not 18
to
accused whereby petitioner prays that said decision be reversed establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
and set aside, respondent judge be perpetually enjoined from reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction
enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment and trial of and control of the fiscal is to prevent
19
malicious or unfounded
petitioner in said criminal case, declaring the information filed prosecution by 20
private persons. It cannot be controlled by the
not valid and of no legal force and effect, ordering respondent cornplainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in
Judge to dismiss the said16 case, and declaring the obligation of them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of
petitioner as purely civil.
_______________ prosecuting persons who, according to the
_______________
11 Annex L to Annex E; pp. 141142, supra. 17 Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, now Section 5, Rule 110 of
12 Annex E; pp. 4253, supra. 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, People v. Valdemoro, 102 SCRA 170.
13 P. 145, supra. 18 Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance, 63 Phil. 846.
14 Annex A to petition; pp. 2326, supra. 19 U.S. vs. Narvas, 14 Phil. 410.
15 Annex D, pp. 4041, supra. 20 People vs. Sope, 75 Phil. 810; People vs. Liggayu, 97 Phil. 865; Zulueta
16 Pp. 521, supra. vs. Nicolas, 102 Phil. 944; People vs. Natoza, G.R. L8917, Dec. 14, 1956.
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 151, JUNE 30, 1987 469
Crespo vs. Mogul Crespo vs. Mogul
evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty21 prohibition 29may be issued by the courts to restrain a criminal
of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. prosecution except in the extreme case where it is necessary
They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an for the Courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice
investigation they become convinced that the evidence22
adduced or to prevent the use of the strong30
arm of the law in an
is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. oppressive and vindictive manner.
23
It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without
the fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie case that any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval of
would warrant the prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the
interfere with the fiscals discretion and control of the criminal case maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of
prosecution. It is not prudent or even permissible for a Court to Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the
compel the fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated action or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of
by him on an information, if he finds that the 24
evidence relied Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the case be 31filed in
upon by him is insufficient for conviction. Neither has the Court or otherwise, that an information be filed in Court.
Court any power to order the fiscal to prosecute or file an The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a
information within a certain period of time, since this would criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the32
interfere with25 the fiscals discretion and control of criminal case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case.
prosecutions. Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant
case for insufficiency of evidence has authority26
to do so, and for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the
Courts that grant the same commit no error. The fiscal may re- accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was
investigate a case and subsequently move for the dismissal duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the
should the re-investigation show either that the defendant is person of the accused.
33

innocent or that 27 his guilt may not be established beyond

reasonable doubt. In a clash of views between the judge who The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for
______________
did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal 29 Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil 103, 112.
and the offended party or28the defendant, those of the Fiscals 30 Dimayuga vs. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 384, 307; University of the Philippines
should normally prevail. On the other hand, neither an vs. City Fiscal of Quezon City, G.R. No. L-18562, July 31, 1961.
injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ of
_______________
31 PD 911, now Section 4, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure; Estrella vs. Orendain, Jr., 37 SCRA 650652, 654655; Gonzales
21 Bagatua vs. Revilla, G.R. L-12247, August 26, 1958. vs. Serrano, L-25791, Sept. 23, 1968, 25 SCRA 64; Caeg vs. Abad Santos,
22 Zulueta vs. Nicolas, supra. N-40044, March 10, 1975, 63 SCRA 96; Oliveros vs. Villaluz, L-33362, July
23 Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court; Presidential Decree 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 327; Noblejas vs. Salas, L-31788 and 31792, Sept. 15,
911; Sections 14, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. 1975, 67 SCRA 47; Vda. de Jacob vs. Puno, 131 SCRA 144; Circular No.
24 People vs. De Moll. 68 Phil. 626. 13, April 19, 1976 of the Secretary of Justice.
32 Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phils. 245; U.S. vs. Limsiongco, 41 Phils. 94; De
25 Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete, 103 Phil. 914; People vs.
Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 748. la Cruz vs. Mujer, 36 Phils. 213; Section 1 Rule 110, Rules of Court, now
26 People vs. Natoza, supra; Pangan vs. Pasicolan, G.R. L12517, May 19,
Section 1 also Rule 110, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
33 21 C.J.S. 123; Carrington.
1958.
27 People vs. Jamisola, No. L-27332, Nov. 28, 1969; People vs. Agasang, 66
Phil. 182.
28 People vs. Pineda, supra.
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 151, JUNE 30, 1987 471
Crespo vs. Mogul Crespo vs. Mogul
the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the
warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own
filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above independent judgment as to whether the accused should be
stated, the filing of said information sets in. motion the criminal convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the
action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines
proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the
permission of the Court must be secured. After such prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a private37
reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the 34
fiscal prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void.
should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for
it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court the evidence to the38 private prosecutor but still under his
or not, once the case had already been brought to Court direction and control.
whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
case thereafter
35
should be addressed for the consideration of the or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its
Court. The only qualification is that the action of the 36
Court dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in
must not impair the substantial rights of36a the accused. or the the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
right of the People to due process of law. direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion
it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what
Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is
to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to
the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
proceed for the proper determination of the case. Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not
However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses to grant the matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the
motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or
Secretary of Justice will there not be a vacuum in the upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
prosecution? A state prosecutor to handle the case cannot records of the investigation.
possibly be designated by the Secretary of Justice who does not In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the
believe that there is a basis for prosecution nor can the fiscal be opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of
expected to handle the prosecution of the case thereby defying the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of
the superior order of the Secretary of Justice. Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a
The answer is simple. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
We all know is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to the complaint or information has already been filed in Court.
secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts. The matter should be left entirely for the determination
_______________
Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of
________________ 37People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361 (1976).
34 U.S. vs. Barreto, 32 Phils. 444. 38 U.S. vs. Despabiladeras, 32 Phils. 442; U.S. vs. Gallego, 37 Phils. 289;
35 Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete, Supra.
People vs. Hernandez, 69 Phils. 672; U.S. vs. Labil, 27 Phils. 82; U.S. vs.
36 People vs. Zabala, 58 O.G. 5028.
Fernandez, Phils. 539; People vs. Velez, 77 Phils. 1026.
36a Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43, 101.
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
National Development Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
of the Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and
Cortes, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, C.J., reserving the filing of a separate
opinion.
Petition dismissed.
Notes.Although fiscal turns over active conduct of trial to
private prosecutor, he should be present during the proceedings.
(People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361.)
A judge may not amend the designation of a complaint or
information after preliminary investigation and before the
defendant pleads. This power belongs to the fiscal. (Bais vs.
Tagaoen, 89 SCRA 101.)
o0o