SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Legprof No misquoting or 28feb2016 Arabe

misrepresenting
content of papers
CASE NAME: Manalo v calderon
PONENTE: chico nazario Case Date: 2009
Case Summary:
Complainant sought to re-open a criminal case where the petitioners are allegedly
involved. They filed informations against them. The city prosecutor wanted to withdraw the
information on the grounds of lack of probable cause.
The judge denied the prosecutor’s motions and ruled that they be included since
probable cause was established.
The petitioners appealed under rule 65 mandamus saying that the judge should follow the
recommendation of the prosecutor to drop the case.
The petitioners cited several cases mostly importantlly the montesa and the Ledesma case.
They made it seem like the quotated passages were directly lifted from the decisions when
they were altered to help the petitioner’s case.
Mandamus can only apply to a judge when he does not act on his duties. It cannot
compel a judge to do his duties in a specific way.
The court denied the petition, ordered counsel to explain why no disciplinary proceeding
should be held against him

Rule of Law:
Misquoting SC decisions should never be done

Detailed Facts:
 Several information of rape and acts of lasciviousness against the petitioners
 Complainants AAA and BBB want a review of the information because they think
there are errors
 The prosecutor moved to have these dismissed for lack of probable cause
 The judge ruled in favor of the complainants and ordered the information to be
reviewed
 The petitioners appealed under rule 65 mandamus to order the judge to dismiss the
case
Issue:

(P) W/N the writ of mandamus is applicable

(s) w/n probable cause exists
Holding:

1. Mandamus does not apply. The upholding or denying information is discretionary

upon a judge, he cannot be ordered to do his duties in a certain way.
 The petitioners misquoted the case of people v montesa
Quoted text:
In the instant case, the respondent Judge granted the motion for
reinvestigation and directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan
to conduct the reinvestigation. The former was, therefore, deemed to have

BLOCK D 2019 1
 deferred to the authority of the prosecution arm of the Government to
consider the so-called new relevant and material evidence and determine
whether the information it had filed should stand

Original text
The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court,
any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. While the prosecutor
retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, he cannot
impose his opinion on the court. The court is the best and sole judge on what
to do with the case. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss the case filed by the
prosecutor before or after the arraignment, or after a reinvestigation, or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records upon
reinvestigation, should be addressed to the discretion of the court. The action
of the court must not, however, impair the substantial rights of the accused or
the right of the People to due process of law
 They also misquoted the fallo of the Ledesma
Quoted text:
WHEREFORE, finding no probable cause against the herein accused for the
crimes of rapes and acts of lasciviousness, the motion to withdraw informations
is DENIED.

Orginal text:
After a careful study of the sworn statements of the complainants and the
resolution dated March 3, 2006 of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C.
de Vera, the Court finds that there was probable cause against the herein
accused

2. The court also chose to declare that there was probable cause but did not explain
saying that the judge’s decision was enough.
Ruling:
Denied because of lack of merit. Counsel for petitioners, atty beltran jr is ordered to
comment on why no disciplinary proceeding should be filed
Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019 2