GR 121180; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121180 . July 5, 1996.
GERARDO A. MOSQUERA, petitioner, vs. HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, HON. FELICIDAD Y. NAVARRO-QUIAMBAO, and MARK F. JALANDONI, respondents.
FACTS
A criminal information for less serious physical injuries was filed against petitioner Gerardo Mosquera and others before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati, arising from an altercation with private respondent Mark Jalandoni at the Ateneo Law School. Upon the directive of the Department of Justice, which found no probable cause after petitioner’s appeal, the public prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information. The MeTC, in an order dated October 13, 1994, granted the motion and considered the information withdrawn. However, upon motion for reconsideration filed by the private offended party (Jalandoni), the MeTC reversed itself in an order dated December 29, 1994, reinstating the information. It reasoned that once a case is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction and the prosecutor loses control. Petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was dismissed, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the criminal information on motion of the private offended party after it had granted the prosecution’s motion to withdraw.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC and set aside the MeTC orders. The Court clarified that while a court has the authority to grant or deny a motion to withdraw an information filed by the prosecutor, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The court must make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion based on the prosecution’s evidence. In this case, the MeTC’s initial order granting withdrawal merely cited the DOJ directive and the private counsel’s perceived loss of interest, without evaluating the evidence. Its subsequent order reinstating the case incorrectly relied on the broad principle of court jurisdiction and control, again without an independent evaluation of whether the evidence warranted continued prosecution. The offended party’s right to intervene does not equate to a veto power over the prosecutor’s motion; the court’s primary duty is to determine if the motion is based on a valid ground, such as lack of evidence. The matter was remanded to the MeTC to resolve the motion to withdraw based on a clear evaluation of the evidence.