Crespo v. Mogul

In April 1977 an assistant fiscal, with the Provincial Fiscal's approval, filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. Crespo moved to defer arraignment because a petition for review of the fiscal's resolution was pending with the Secretary of Justice. Judge Leodegario L. Mogul denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals restrained the arraignment until the Department of Justice resolved the petition. The Undersecretary of Justice then reversed the fiscal's resolution and directed him to move for the dismissal of the information, reasoning that a check issued for a pre-existing obligation gives rise only to civil liability. The fiscal moved to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence. Judge Mogul denied the motion and set the arraignment, reasoning that it would have him decide the case on evidence adduced before the Undersecretary rather than before the court, eroding the court's independence. The Court of Appeals dismissed Crespo's petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and he sought review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General supported the petition.

1. 1Whether a trial court, acting on the fiscal's motion to dismiss filed upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice, may refuse to grant it and proceed with arraignment and trial.

The petition was dismissed. All criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal, who decides whether to file a case, and courts cannot ordinarily interfere with that discretion. The fiscal's action is also subject to review by the Secretary of Justice, who may direct that an information be filed or that a motion to dismiss be filed. But the filing of the information in court initiates the criminal action and vests the court with jurisdiction, and the preliminary investigation ends upon such filing. From then on, "whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court," subject only to the substantial rights of the accused and the People's right to due process. The Court held: "once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court." The fiscal "cannot impose his opinion on the trial court"; the court "is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it," whether the motion comes before or after arraignment, and whether it follows a reinvestigation or the instructions of the Secretary of Justice. If the court denies the motion, the fiscal must still proceed and present the prosecution's evidence, since his role is to see that justice is done, not merely to secure a conviction; he may turn over presentation to a private prosecutor but under his direction and control. To avoid such conflicts, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review once the information has been filed in court.