Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Daril Gonzales
    The MeTC dismissed a criminal case for falsification of documents filed by respondent against petitioners due to lack of probable cause. Respondent appealed the dismissal to the RTC with the conformity of the public prosecutor. The RTC set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the MeTC. Petitioners appealed to the CA, which dismissed as the RTC order was interlocutory. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent could properly appeal the dismissal by the MeTC to the RTC, as Presidential Decree No. 911 does not prohibit such an appeal by the public prosecutor without approval of the Chief Prosecutor. The public prosecutor representing the People in trial courts has authority to file such an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Daril Gonzales
    168 views3 pages
    The MeTC dismissed a criminal case for falsification of documents filed by respondent against petitioners due to lack of probable cause. Respondent appealed the dismissal to the RTC with the conformity of the public prosecutor. The RTC set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the MeTC. Petitioners appealed to the CA, which dismissed as the RTC order was interlocutory. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent could properly appeal the dismissal by the MeTC to the RTC, as Presidential Decree No. 911 does not prohibit such an appeal by the public prosecutor without approval of the Chief Prosecutor. The public prosecutor representing the People in trial courts has authority to file such an appeal.

    Original Description:

    Preliminary Investigation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The MeTC dismissed a criminal case for falsification of documents filed by respondent against petitioners due to lack of probable cause. Respondent appealed the dismissal to the RTC with the conformity of the public prosecutor. The RTC set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the MeTC. Petitioners appealed to the CA, which dismissed as the RTC order was interlocutory. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent could properly appeal the dismissal by the MeTC to the RTC, as Presidential Decree No. 911 does not prohibit such an appeal by the public prosecutor without approval of the Chief Prosecutor. The public prosecutor representing the People in trial courts has authority to file such an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    168 views3 pages

    Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Daril Gonzales
    The MeTC dismissed a criminal case for falsification of documents filed by respondent against petitioners due to lack of probable cause. Respondent appealed the dismissal to the RTC with the conformity of the public prosecutor. The RTC set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the MeTC. Petitioners appealed to the CA, which dismissed as the RTC order was interlocutory. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent could properly appeal the dismissal by the MeTC to the RTC, as Presidential Decree No. 911 does not prohibit such an appeal by the public prosecutor without approval of the Chief Prosecutor. The public prosecutor representing the People in trial courts has authority to file such an appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    ROSA H. FENEQUITO, ET. AL, VS. BERNARDO VERGARA, JR.

    G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012

    Facts:
    The MeTC dismissed the criminal case filed by respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. for falsification
    of public documents against petitioners Rosa H. Fenequito, et. al., upon motion of the petitioners
    based on lack of probable cause. With the express conformity of the public prosecutor, the
    respondents appealed the dismissal to the RTC. The RTC set aside the order of dismissal and
    remanded the case to the MeTC for trial. Petitioners questioned the order of the RTC by Petition
    for Review before the CA which was dismissed for being improper because the order of the RTC
    is interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable. Petitioners filed a Motion for
    Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution, hence, the instant petition.

    Issue:
    Whether respondent can appeal the dismissal made by the MeTC to the RTC.

    Held:
    Yes. Petitioners' reliance on Presidential Decree No. 911 is misplaced, as the cited provision
    refers only to cases where the assistant fiscal or state prosecutor's power to file information or
    dismiss a case is predicated or conditioned upon the prior authority or approval of the Provincial
    or city fiscal or the Chief State Prosecutor. There is nothing in the said law, which provides that
    in cases of appeal, an Assistant City Prosecutor or a State Prosecutor may file the same only
    upon prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor. In other
    words, unless otherwise ordered, an Assistant City Prosecutor or a State Prosecutor may file an
    appeal with the RTC, questioning the dismissal by the MeTC of a case for lack of probable
    cause, even without prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or the Chief State
    Prosecutor.
    Since the appeal, in the instant case was made with the RTC of Manila, it is clear that the City
    Prosecutor or his assistant (in this case, the Assistant City Prosecutor) had authority to file the
    same.

    Suffice it to say that the appeal filed with the RTC was made with the express conformity of the
    public prosecutor who handles the case. It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG
    which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC. The Administrative Code of 1987 mandates
    the OSG to represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all
    criminal proceedings.” On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled
    “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the
    Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National
    Prosecution Service,” which was the law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides that
    the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) “shall have charge of the
    prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in the
    courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution
    of criminal prosecutions.” In consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has been held by
    this Court that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses
    before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit
    trial courts and the regional trial courts.

    You might also like