G.R. No. 106695 August 4, 1994
EDWARD T. MARCELO, DIONILO D. MARFIL, CELIA C. CABURNAY, and DANIEL T. PASCUAL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, in his capacity as The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, and THE QUEZON CITY PROSECUTOR, respondents.

FACTS

Jose T. Marcelo charged the petitioners with falsification of public documents for forging the signature of Jose P. Marcelo, Sr. in six voting trust agreements. After preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Domingo Israel recommended filing the case. An information was filed on May 30, 1991, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-91-21285 in the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 96 (Bersamin court). Petitioners filed a Motion for Review with the Office of the City Prosecutor. The court granted motions to defer arraignment pending the review. On November 15, 1991, the Review Committee reversed the investigating prosecutor’s resolution and recommended withdrawal of the information. On December 13, 1991, Judge Bersamin granted the motions to dismiss and withdraw the information, dismissing the case. Meanwhile, the private complainant appealed the Review Committee’s resolution to the Secretary of Justice. On January 27, 1992, Secretary of Justice Silvestre R. Bello III reversed the Review Committee and ordered the filing of a new information. A new information was filed on February 5, 1992, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-92-28104 in RTC Quezon City, Branch 101 (Santiago court). Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, arguing the dismissal of the first case was final and the Secretary of Justice’s order was void. Judge Santiago denied the motion. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The Santiago court proceeded with the arraignment and trial. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether a pre-arraignment dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court, based on the reversal by the Review Committee of the Office of the City Prosecutor of the investigating prosecutor’s resolution to file the information, bars the filing of a new information for the same offense after the Secretary of Justice reversed the resolution of the review committee.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The filing of the new information was valid. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari, not because it was an improper remedy, but because the Santiago court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. The petitioners’ contention that the prosecutor lacked authority to file the new information because he acted upon a void order of the Secretary of Justice, citing Crespo vs. Mogul, is untenable. The ruling in Crespo is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the Secretary of Justice cannot interfere with the court’s disposition. However, in this case, the dismissal of the first case (Criminal Case No. Q-91-21285) by Judge Bersamin was based solely on the resolution of the Review Committee recommending withdrawal. This dismissal was a mistake because the court should have evaluated the merits of the motion to dismiss independently and not merely relied on the prosecution’s recommendation. Since the dismissal was based on a misapprehension of the court’s duty, it was not a judgment on the merits and did not constitute double jeopardy. Therefore, the Secretary of Justice’s order for the filing of a new information was valid, and the subsequent proceedings in the new case were proper.