Case Digest (G.R. No. 174813-15)
Facts:
In Hipos v. Bay (G.R. Nos. 174813-15, March 17, 2009), petitioners Nilo Hipos, Sr. (representing Darryl Hipos), Benjamin Corsiao (representing Jaycee Corsiao), and Erlinda Villaruel (representing Arthur Villaruel) were charged by three Informations—two for rape and one for acts of lasciviousness—filed on December 15, 2003 before Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court (acting as Family Court) in Quezon City, presided by Judge Teodoro A. Bay. The private complainants moved for reinvestigation on February 23, 2004, which Judge Bay granted. Petitioners then filed a Joint Memorandum to Dismiss on May 19, 2004 for lack of probable cause. On August 10, 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor upheld the Informations, but on March 3, 2006, a second assistant prosecutor reversed that resolution, finding no probable cause, and filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations with the trial court. On October 2, 2006, Judge Bay denied the motion. Without seeking reconsideration, petitioners filed a PeCase Digest (G.R. No. 174813-15)
Facts:
- Filing and initial proceedings
- On 15 December 2003, two Informations for rape and one for acts of lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Darryl Hipos, Jaycee CorsiAo, Arthur Villaruel, and two others before RTC Branch 86, Quezon City (Crim. Cases Q-03-123284 to Q-03-123286), signed by Asst. City Prosecutor Ronald C. Torralba.
- On 23 February 2004, private complainants filed a Motion for Reinvestigation; Judge Bay granted it and ordered a reinvestigation.
- Reinvestigation and motions to dismiss
- On 19 May 2004, petitioners filed a Joint Memorandum to Dismiss for lack of probable cause.
- On 10 August 2004, Asst. City Prosecutor Raniel S. Cruz (approved by City Prosecutor Arellano) issued a Resolution affirming the Informations.
- On 3 March 2006, 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Lamberto C. de Vera reversed the 10 August 2004 Resolution, finding no probable cause, and filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations.
- Trial court action and petition for mandamus
- On 2 October 2006, Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw Informations.
- Petitioners filed no motion for reconsideration but instead sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel dismissal based on the prosecutor’s resolution.
Issues:
- Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a trial court judge to grant a Motion to Withdraw Informations and thus dismiss criminal charges, solely by virtue of a fiscal’s resolution finding no probable cause.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)