Case Summary (G.R. No. L-53373)
Factual and Procedural Background
- April 18, 1977: Information for estafa filed by Assistant Fiscal De Gala with Provincial Fiscal’s approval.
- August 1 & 5, 1977: Trial court denies deferment of arraignment despite pending review before Secretary of Justice. Arraignment reset to August 18.
- August 17, 1977: Court of Appeals issues a writ restraining arraignment until the Department of Justice resolves the review.
- March 22, 1978: Undersecretary of Justice reverses the Provincial Fiscal’s resolution and directs dismissal for insufficiency of evidence.
- April 10, 1978: Provincial Fiscal moves to dismiss the information, attaching Undersecretary’s letter.
- August 2, 1978: Trial judge denies the motion, insisting on arraignment December 18, 1978.
- January 23, 1979: Court of Appeals again restrains arraignment.
- October 25, 1979: Court of Appeals dismisses the petition, lifting restraint; motion for reconsideration denied February 19, 1980.
- Subsequent petition elevates matter to the Supreme Court, En Banc.
Issue
Whether a trial court may, in its discretion, deny a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal pursuant to the Secretary of Justice’s directive and insist on arraignment and trial on the merits.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was within its discretion, and no injunction or prohibition will lie to restrain further prosecution.
Reasoning
Fiscal’s Discretion Pre-Filing
- Under Rule 110, the fiscal exercises quasi-judicial discretion in initiating or not initiating prosecution, based on sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- This control safeguards against malicious or unfounded private prosecutions.
Court’s Authority Post-Filing
- Filing of an information vests jurisdiction in the court over both subject matter and person of the accused.
- Once in court, any further disposition—including dismissal—rests in the court’s sound discretion.
Interplay Between Fiscal and Court
- Although the fiscal retains “direction and control” of prosecution, the trial court is the “sole judge” of case disposition.
- A fiscal-filed motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court, which may grant or deny it irrespective of arraignment status or directives from the Secretary of Justice.
Limitations on Judicial Intervention
- Courts may not issue an injunction or writ of prohibition to halt a criminal prosecution except in extreme cases to prevent oppressive or vindictive use of the law.
- Here, no such exceptional circumstances were shown; the court rightl
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-53373)
Facts of the Case
- On April 18, 1977, an information for estafa was filed against Mario Fl. Crespo in Criminal Case No. CCC-IX-52 (Quezon) 77 by Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with approval of the Provincial Fiscal.
- Crespo moved to defer arraignment, citing a pending petition for review before the Secretary of Justice contesting the Office of the Provincial Fiscal’s resolution to file the information.
- The dispositive question concerns whether a trial court may refuse a fiscal’s motion to dismiss and insist on arraignment and trial on the merits despite directives from a higher prosecutorial authority.
Procedural History in the Trial Court
- August 1, 1977: Judge Leodegario L. Mogul denied Crespo’s motion to defer arraignment.
- August 5, 1977: Motion for reconsideration denied; arraignment deferred to August 18 to allow elevation of the review petition.
- April 10, 1978: Following the Secretary of Justice’s directive to dismiss, the Provincial Fiscal moved to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence, attaching the Undersecretary’s letter.
- August 2, 1978: Private prosecutor granted time to file opposition.
- November 24, 1978: Trial court denied motion to dismiss, finding it a usurpation of the court’s role and set arraignment for December 18, 1978.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- August 17, 1977 (CA-4G.R.SP 06978): CA issued a restraining order against Judge Mogul’s arraignment until further orders.
- May 15, 1978: CA granted writ, permanently restraining the trial court from arraignment until the Department of Justice resolved Crespo’s review petition.
- January 23, 1979 (CA-G.R.SP 08777): Upon Crespo’s second petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, CA again restrained arraignment.
- October 25, 1979: CA dismissed the petition and lifted its restraining order.
- February 19, 1980: Motion for reconsideration denied,