DENIAL OF THE MOTION

FROILAN L. HONG v. ILUMINADO ARAGON et.al.

G.R. No. 209797| September 08, 2020 | First Division | REYES, J.

JR., J.

DOCTRINE:

In granting or denying a motion to withdraw an information, the court

must conduct a cautious and independent evaluation of the evidence of the
prosecution and must be convinced that the merits of the case warrant
either the dismissal or continuation of the action.

FACTS:

As founders of Lord's Flock Catholic Charismatic Community, spouses

Rodriguez were members of the Council of Elders and were joined in said
council by Fr. Faraon. Subsequently, there was a falling out between Fr.
Faraon and spouses Rodriguez. In an alleged response to the disagreements
among leaders of Lord's Flock, its members allegedly spread rumors against
the Council of Eiders; an act contrary to the teachings of Shema, a
guidebook that lays down the hierarchical structure of the community and
embodies its teachings and the way of life of its members. Thus, spouses
Rodriguez and petitioner appealed to the members to stop gossiping and
spreading rumors, but their pleas were unheeded. Petitioner and Apollo
Jucaban told Fr. Faraon that they no longer consider him as an authority
over the Lord's Flock. Prosecutor Del Rosario issued a Resolution, finding
probable cause against petitioner for the crime of libel. An Information was
filed with the RTC. Correspondingly, a Motion to Withdraw Information was
filed by the prosecution. The RTC denied the motion for lack of merit. The CA
ruled that RTC- Branch 215 and RTC-Branch 105 acted within their power
in denying the motion to withdraw as they found probable cause for libel.

ISSUE:

Is there propriety of the denial of the motion to withdraw information?

RULING:

Yes. In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw the

information filed by the public prosecutor, either for insufficiency of evidence
in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the trial
court should not merely rely on the findings of the public prosecutor or of
the Secretary of Justice that no crime had been committed or that the
evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support
a judgment of conviction of the accused. To do so is to surrender a power
constitutionally vested in the Judiciary to the Executive. Thus, the court has
the duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this
assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the same. In
this case, the Orders explicitly stated the reasons for denying the motion to
withdraw Information. The trial courts were categorical in stating that the
evidence presented by both parties were reviewed and evaluated. After such

1
assessment, they went on to pronounce that there exists probable cause
against the petitioner to hold him for trial. After going over the assailed
order, and evaluating the information and the documents attached thereto,
the Court maintains the denial of the motion to withdraw information.