Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    CRESPO VS MOGUL CASE DIGEST by Dulcero JM

    Uploaded by

    Janmikko Bollozos Dulcero
    The accused, Mario Crespo, was charged with estafa but filed a motion to defer his arraignment due to a pending petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Judge Mogul denied the motion. The Secretary of Justice later reversed the charges. However, Judge Mogul refused to dismiss the case and insisted on proceeding with arraignment. The Court of Appeals ruled that once the Secretary of Justice directs the dismissal of a case, the trial court must grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal and cannot proceed with arraignment or trial. Prosecution of criminal cases is under the direction and control of the fiscal and ultimately the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

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

    CRESPO VS MOGUL CASE DIGEST by Dulcero JM

    Uploaded by

    Janmikko Bollozos Dulcero
    40 views2 pages
    The accused, Mario Crespo, was charged with estafa but filed a motion to defer his arraignment due to a pending petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Judge Mogul denied the motion. The Secretary of Justice later reversed the charges. However, Judge Mogul refused to dismiss the case and insisted on proceeding with arraignment. The Court of Appeals ruled that once the Secretary of Justice directs the dismissal of a case, the trial court must grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal and cannot proceed with arraignment or trial. Prosecution of criminal cases is under the direction and control of the fiscal and ultimately the Secretary of Justice.

    Original Description:

    My Digest on the Crespo V Mogul Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused, Mario Crespo, was charged with estafa but filed a motion to defer his arraignment due to a pending petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Judge Mogul denied the motion. The Secretary of Justice later reversed the charges. However, Judge Mogul refused to dismiss the case and insisted on proceeding with arraignment. The Court of Appeals ruled that once the Secretary of Justice directs the dismissal of a case, the trial court must grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal and cannot proceed with arraignment or trial. Prosecution of criminal cases is under the direction and control of the fiscal and ultimately the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    CRESPO VS MOGUL CASE DIGEST by Dulcero JM

    Uploaded by

    Janmikko Bollozos Dulcero
    The accused, Mario Crespo, was charged with estafa but filed a motion to defer his arraignment due to a pending petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Judge Mogul denied the motion. The Secretary of Justice later reversed the charges. However, Judge Mogul refused to dismiss the case and insisted on proceeding with arraignment. The Court of Appeals ruled that once the Secretary of Justice directs the dismissal of a case, the trial court must grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal and cannot proceed with arraignment or trial. Prosecution of criminal cases is under the direction and control of the fiscal and ultimately the Secretary of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CRESPO VS MOGUL CASE DIGEST

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Mario Crespo was accused for Estafa in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the
    case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion for defer arraignment on the ground that there
    was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice. However, Justice Mogul denied the
    motion, but the arraignment was deferred in a much later date to afford time for the petitioner to
    elevate the matter to the appellate court. 

    The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction
    to the CA. The CA ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the arraignment until further
    orders of the Court. Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Catalino Macaraig Jr., resolved 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 the accused.  Judge Mogul denied the motion for
    dismissal of the case ad set the arraignment. The accused 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. The CA dismissed the order and lifted the restraining order.

    Issue: Whether the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to dismiss filed by the Fiscal under orders
    fro, the Secretary of Justice and insists on arraignment and trial on the merits.

    HELD:
    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. 17 The institution of a criminal action
    depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. 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. 19 It cannot be controlled by the complainant. 

    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.

    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.

    You might also like