G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988
HELENA ALMAZAR, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO D. CENZON, Presiding Judge, Branch XL, Court of First Instance of Manila; THE HONORABLE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, and WALTER PHILIPPS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Helena Almazar filed a complaint for estafa against her former husband, private respondent Walter Philipps. The City Fiscal of Manila filed an information alleging that Philipps, as Almazar’s attorney-in-fact, sold her airplane for P25,000.00 but misappropriated the proceeds. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 22915. Upon review, the Secretary of Justice found no probable cause, concluding the airplane was Philipps’ property, not Almazar’s paraphernal property. The Secretary directed the City Fiscal to move for dismissal. The original trial judge denied the motion. After the case was re-raffled to respondent Judge Pedro D. Cenzon, the fiscal renewed the motion to dismiss. Judge Cenzon granted it, dismissing the case. Almazar filed this certiorari and mandamus petition, arguing the judge gravely abused his discretion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Cenzon committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the fiscal’s motion to dismiss the criminal case after the accused’s arraignment and based on the Secretary of Justice’s review.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court held that Judge Cenzon was competent to act on the renewed motion. A judge can act on any aspect of a case while it remains before his branch. Since the case had been re-raffled to him, he properly assumed jurisdiction over all incidents, including the motion to dismiss previously denied by another judge. On the substantive issue, the Court emphasized that once an information is filed, the court retains full discretion over the case’s disposition, including granting a motion to dismiss, regardless of whether the accused has been arraigned or the motion is based on a superior’s directive. The dismissal was not capricious. At the stage where no evidence had been presented, the fiscal’s evaluation, based on a detailed review, should normally prevail. The Secretary of Justice’s findings were reasonable: evidence indicated a sale, not a lease with option to buy; the divorce decree settled property claims; Philipps, a pilot, possessed and maintained the plane; and Almazar never exercised acts of ownership. While the Court noted the Secretary of Justice should refrain from reviewing cases already in court, it found no abuse in Judge Cenzon’s reliance on the well-founded motion to dismiss under the circumstances.