GR 88442; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88442 February 15, 1990
FELIX A. VELASQUEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO and EDGARDO AVILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felix A. Velasquez, as Executive Vice-President of Techtrade Management International Corporation, filed a complaint for estafa against respondent Edgardo Avila, a former company consultant. The complaint alleged that Avila secured a company check for P194,000, representing a loan to an unidentified borrower, but failed to account for or return the funds despite demands. After an initial dismissal, the City Fiscal’s Office ultimately ordered the filing of an information for estafa against Avila in the Regional Trial Court.
Avila sought review from the Department of Justice. After the Undersecretary of Justice initially denied his petition, a subsequent Undersecretary, Artemio G. Tuquero, granted Avila’s second motion for reconsideration. The order directed the City Fiscal to conduct a reinvestigation to allow Avila to present evidence of alleged authorization to handle company funds. Velasquez moved for reconsideration, but it was denied, prompting him to file this petition for certiorari to annul the Undersecretary’s order for reinvestigation.
ISSUE
Whether the Undersecretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a reinvestigation of the estafa case after the corresponding information had already been filed in court.
RULING
Yes, the Undersecretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the questioned order. The ruling is firmly grounded in the doctrine established in Crespo v. Mogul, which holds that once an information is filed in court, the court acquires complete jurisdiction over the case. Any subsequent disposition, including a motion for reinvestigation or dismissal, must be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The prosecutorial arm of the government, including the Secretary or Undersecretary of Justice, cannot interfere with or impose its opinion on the court after jurisdiction has vested.
The legal logic is clear: the court becomes the sole judge of the case. While the fiscal retains direction and control of the prosecution, this authority cannot undermine the court’s exclusive jurisdiction to determine the merits. To avoid conflict where a trial court might disregard a reviewing secretary’s order, the Secretary of Justice should, as a rule, refrain from entertaining appeals from a fiscal’s action once the case is in court. The purpose of the reinvestigation—to allow Avila to present an alleged board resolution—could be properly achieved during the trial where such evidence may be offered as part of the defense. Therefore, the Undersecretary’s order constituted an improper intrusion into judicial domain.