GR No.

L-53373

Mario FL. Crespo vs. Hon. Leodegario L. Mogul – Presiding Judge – Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City

June 30, 1987

Facts

On April 18, 1977, an information for estafa against Mario Crespo was filed by the assistant fiscal
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 motion filed with the Secretary of
Justice for the filing of the information. The presiding judge, Hon. Leodegario Mogul denied the motion
but deferred the arraignment to August 18, 1977 to give time to the accused to elevate the matter to
the appellate court.

On August 17, 1977, the CA restraint the trial court from proceeding with the arraignment until
further notice from it and later on granted a writ perpetually restraining the trial court from compelling
the arraignment. On March 22, 1987, the Undersecretary of Justice directed the fiscal to file a motion to
move for immediate dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. However, on August 2, 1978, the trial court
issued an order that the arraignment of the accused be set on December 18, 1978.

The accused filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which was granted and a restraining order
was issued by the CA on January 23, 1979, but was lifted on October 25, 1979. The accused then filed a
petition to the court and thus, the case.

Issues

Whether or not a fiscal has the authority to file a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence
after an information was already filed to the court.

Ruling

Thus, the court ruled for the dismissal of the petition granting the trial court the right to
disregard the opinion of the Secretary of Justice, proceed with the trial and decide on the merits of the
case.

The institution of a criminal action depends on the discretion of the fiscal. The prosecuting
officers, however, must conduct a preliminary investigation to determine the existence of a prima facie
case that would warrant the prosecution of the case. The action of the fiscal is subject to the approval of
the provincial or city prosecutor and may be elevated to the Secretary of Justice as the case may be.

However, in the given case, there was already an information filed to the trial court and thereby
initiates a criminal action. Thus, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to
hear and determine the case.

The rule is that once a complaint or information is filed in court in 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, he cannot impose his opinion on
the trial court.