CRESPO v MOGUL 151 SCRA 462GANCAYCO; June 30, 1987 NATURE Petition to review the decision of the Circuit

CriminalC o u r t o f L u c e n a C i t y ( p e t i t i o n e r p r a y s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e b e p e r p e t u a l l y e n j o i n e d f r o m enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignmentand trail of petitioner, ordering respondent Judge todismiss the said case, and declaring the obligation of petitioner as purely civil.) FACTS - Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala filed an informationfor estafa against Mario Crespo in Circuit CriminalC o u r t o f L u c e n a C i t y . W h e n t h e c a s e w a s s e t f o r arraignment, the accused filed a motion to deferarraignment on the ground that there was a pendingpetition for review filed with the Secretary of Justiceof the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscalfor the filing of the information. The presiding judge(leodegario Mogul) denied the motion through hisorder.- T h e accused filed a petition for certiorari andprohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of i n j u n c t i o n . I n a n o r d e r ( A u g 1 7 1 9 7 7 ) , t h e C A restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with thearraignment of the accused until further orders fromthe Court- On May 15 1978, a decision was made by the CAgranting the writ and perpetually restraining the j u d g e f r o m e n f o r c i n g h i s t h r e a t t o c o m p e l t h e arraignment of the accused in the case until the Deptof Justice shall have finally resolved the petition forreview.- On March 22, 1978, The Undersecretary of JusticeHon Catalino Macaraig Jr, resolving the petition forreview, reversed the resolution of the Office of theProvincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move forimmediate dismissal of the information filed againstthe accused. The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion todismiss for insufficiency of evidence on April 10,1978. On November 24 1978, The Judge denied themotion and set the arraignment- T h e a c c u s e d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i , prohibition, and mandamus with petition for theissuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/ortemporary restraining order in the CA. On January 231 9 7 9 , a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w a s i s s u e d b y t h e C A against the threatened act of arraignment of theaccused. However, in a decision of October 25 1979,t h e C A d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n a n d l i f t e d t h e r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r o f J an 23,1979. The motion forreconsideration o f t h e a c c u s e d w a s d e n i e d i n a resolution. ISSUE WON the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss ac r i m i n a l c a s e f i l e d b y t h e P r o v i n c i a l F i s c a l u p o n instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom thecase was elevated for review, may refuse to grantthe motion and insist on the arraignment and trial onthe merits HELD YES Ratio Once an information is filed in court, thecourts prior permission must be secured if fiscalwants to reinvestigate the case. While it is true thatt h e f i s c a l h a s t h e q u a s i j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n t o determine whether or not a criminal case should befiled in court or not, once the case had already beenbrought to Court, whatever disposition the fiscal mayfeel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court.