Crespo vs. Mogul
Crespo vs. Mogul
Crespo vs. Mogul
RELEVANT FACTS
April 18, 1977 – Asst. Fiscal Proceso de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an
Information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City.
When the case was set for arraignment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment since there was
a pending petition for review filed with the DOJ Secretary of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal for the filing of the said Information.
August 1, 1977 – Presiding Judge Leodegario Mogul denied the motion. Motion for Reconsideration was
also denied but the arraignment was deferred to August 18, 1977 to give time to Crespo to elevate the
matter to CA.
Crespo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction
before the CA. CA then restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused
until further orders of the Court.
Solicitor General filed a comment recommending that the petition be given due course.
May 15, 1978 – CA granted the writ and perpetually restraining Judge Mogul from enforcing his threat
to compel the arraignment of the accused until the DOJ shall have finally resolved the petition for
review.
March 22, 1978 – DOJ Usec. Macaraig, Jr. reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against Crespo.
April 10, 1978 – Provincial Fiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss for insufficiency of evidence with the trial
court
August 2, 1978 – Judge Mogul issued an order giving time to the private prosecutor to file an opposition
thereto
November 28, 1978 – Judge Mogul denied the motion to dismiss and set the arraignment on December
18, 1978 at 9AM
Crespo then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of
preliminary writ of prohibition and/or TRO before the CA
January 23, 1979 – CA issued a restraining order against the threatened act of arraignment of the
accused until further orders from the Court
October 25, 1979 – CA dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order. Motion for
Reconsideration was denied.
Hence, Crespo went to SC and filed a petition for review.
Issue Ratio
W/N Judge Mogul erred in NO
not dismissing the case
despite the Motion to 1. SC discussed at length the “job” of prosecutors:
Dismiss filed by the Provincial It is a cardinal principle that criminal actions either commenced by
Fiscal as per the order by the complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction
DOJ Usec.? and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends
upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the
complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the
offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is
sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution
under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious
or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It cannot be
controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power
vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty
of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence received
from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed
within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal
duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they become
convinced that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case.
The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for the
dismissal should the re-investigation show either that the defendant
is innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond
reasonable doubt. In a clash of views between the judge who did not
investigate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the
offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally
prevail. On the other hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final
nor a writ of prohibition may be issued by the courts to restrain a
criminal prosecution except in the extreme case where it is necessary
for the Courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to
prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner
The Court also added that in order therefor to avoid such a situation
whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the
Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from
entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the
fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in
Court.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit without pronouncement as to costs.