Crespo vs.

Mogul (1987)

Summary Cases:

● Crespo vs. Mogul

Subject: The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal; Courts
cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution; Power of control and
review of the Secretary of Justice; Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the
case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the
Court

Facts:

Assistant Fiscal de Gala, with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal, filed an information for estafa against
Mario Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. 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 Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the
information.

The presiding Judge Mogul, issued an order denying the motion. A motion for reconsideration of the
order was denied but the arraignment was deferred to afford time for petitioner Crespo to elevate the
matter to the appellate court.

The Court of Appeals (CA) issued a writ of preliminary injunction perpetually restraining Judge Mogul
from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Department of
Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review.

Then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., resolving the petition for review 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 trial court. Judge Mogul denied the motion and set the arraignment.

Crespo filed a petition for certiorari with the CA but this was dismissed. The motion for reconsideration
was denied. Hence, this petition.

The issue is whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial
Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may
refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.

Held:

The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal

1. It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall
be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends
upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not
follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient
or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to
prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It cannot be controlled by the
| Page 1 of 3
complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not only have the authority but
also the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence received from the complainant, are
shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal
duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence adduced is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution

3. 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. It is not prudent or even permissible for a Court
to compel the fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him on an information, if he finds that
the evidence relied upon by him is insufficient for conviction. Neither has the Court any power to order
the fiscal to prosecute or file an information within a certain period of time, since this would interfere with
the fiscal's discretion and control of criminal prosecutions. 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. In a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or between
the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. On the
other hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ of prohibition may be issued by the courts
to restrain a criminal prosecution except in the extreme case where it is necessary for the Courts to do
so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner.

Power of control and review of the Secretary of Justice

4. However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without any limitation or control. The same is
subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the case maybe and
it maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse
the action or opinion of the fiscal. 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.

Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or
the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court

5. 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. When after the filing of
the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the
accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

6. 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. In turn, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action
against the accused in 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. After such reinvestigation the finding and
recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While it is true
that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed
in court or not, 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. The only
| Page 2 of 3
qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the
right of the People to due process of law.

7. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and 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.

8. 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? The answer is simple. The role of the
fiscal or prosecutor is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the
person accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal
to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive
at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal
should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such
circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a
private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void. The least that the fiscal should do
is to continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence
to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.

9. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal
cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court
is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within
its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done
before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

10. In order therefor 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 or appeal from the action of the fiscal,
when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for
the determination of the Court.

| Page 3 of 3