Case Digest (G.R. No. L-53373)
Facts:
Mario Fl. Crespo v. Hon. Leodegario L. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Crespo was arraigned originally in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City on an information for estafa filed April 18, 1977 by Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal (Criminal Case No. CCC-1X-52 (Quezon) 77). When Crespo sought to defer arraignment because he had elevated the provincial fiscal’s resolution to the Secretary of Justice for review, Presiding Judge Leodegario L. Mogul denied the motion (Aug. 1, 1977), and a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied (Aug. 5, 1977), though arraignment was briefly deferred to allow an appeal to be taken.Crespo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA-4G.R. SP No. 06978), and on Aug. 17, 1977 the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with arraignment pending further orders. While the matter was under review, then Undersecretary of Justice Catalino Macaraig, Jr. resolved the petition for review on March 22, 1978, reversing the provincial fiscal’s resolution and directing the fiscal to move for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. Pursuant to that directive, the Provincial Fiscal moved to dismiss the information on April 10, 1978, attaching the Undersecretary’s letter.
Judge Mogul set a schedule for opposition and on November 24, 1978 denied the fiscal’s motion to dismiss and ordered arraignment set for December 18, 1978, explaining that the court could not resolve innocence on evidence outside the record and that the fiscal’s view could not displace the court’s independent adjudicatory role. Crespo then filed another petition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-08777), which first issued a restraining order (Jan. 23, 1979) but ultimately dismissed the petition and lifted the TRO on October 25, 1979; a motion for reconsideration was denied Feb. 19, 1980.
Crespo filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Court’s Second Division initially required comments (May 19, 1980), then transferred the case to th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a trial court refuse to grant a motion to dismiss a criminal information filed by the fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice and instead proceed with arraignment and trial?
- What are the respective limits of the fiscal’s discretion and the trial court’s authority once an information has been filed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)