Crespo v Mogul | G.R. No. L- 53373 | June 30, 1987 | Gancayo, J.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Petitioner: Mario Crespo
Respondent: Hon. Mogul (Judge of Circuit Criminal Court (CCC) of Lucena City), People of the Phil. Represented by SOLGEN
Ricardo Bautista

SUMMARY: An information for Estafa filed against accused. The accused then filed a motion to defer arraignment because there
was a still petition to defer arraignment lodged with the DOJ. The Judge Mogul went through with the trial and even when the
DOJ subsequently motioned for a dismissal of the case. CA granted the injunction to restrain to Judge Mogul. SC then settles the
issue ruling in favor of Judge Mogul by stating that the court has discretion to proceed or dismiss.

DOCTRINE: The court acquires jurisdiction over case upon filing of complaint or information and preliminary investigations ends
there as well. Once a complaint or information is filed in court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or conviction or acquittal
rests in the sound discretion of the court

Facts:

 Apr. 18, 1977: Assistant Fiscal Gala with approval of Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against respondent in
the circuit criminal court of Lucena City. Arraignment was set but accused filed motion to defer arraignment because there
was pending petition to Sec. of justice of resolution of Office of Provincial Fiscal.
 Aug. 1, 1977: denied the motion to defer
 Aug. 5, 1977: motion for recon was also denied. Arraignment was deferred to Aug.18
 Aug. 17, 1977: Court of Appeals granted the preliminary writ of injunction filed by Crespo and restrain Judge Mogul from
proceeding with arraignment.
 May 15, 1978: CA order to perpetually restrain judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of accused until
DOJ resolve the petition for review
 Mar. 22, 1978: DOJ reversed resolution of office of provincial fiscal and directed it to move for immediate dismissal of
information filed against accused.
 Crespo filed AGAIN to CA for issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order. CA, at first,
granted it and then later on lifted the restraining order.
Petitioner: Respondent judge be perpetually restrained from enforcing threat to proceed with arraignment and trial and declare
information not valid and of no legal force and effect.

Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary
of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the
merits? YES.

 A criminal action, either commenced by complaint or by information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and control
of fiscal. The institution of criminal action depends upon discretion of fiscal.
 Fiscal may or may not file complaint or information according to whether the evidence is sufficient or not to establish guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
WHY? – to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private person.

 Fiscal determines existence of prima facie case that would warrant prosecution of a case through preliminary investigation.
The court could not interfere with such discretion and control criminal prosecution. Court could also NOT order fiscal to
prosecute or file an information.
 But action of fiscal also has limitation. Their decisions are subject to review by Secretary of Justice. Sec. of Justice may
direct a motion to dismiss the case or that information be filed in court.
 The court acquires jurisdiction over case upon filing of complaint or information. The preliminary investigation terminates
upon filing of such complaint.
 Once a complaint or information is filed in court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or conviction or acquittal rests
in the sound discretion of the court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.