G.R. No. 174016; July 28, 2008
SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact ARLENE C. BALTAZAR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ARMANDO C. BAUTISTA, Respondents.

FACTS

On April 21, 2002, a car struck a pedicab in Pulilan, Bulacan, ejecting passengers Erlinda and Rolando Baltazar. Witnesses stated the car stopped, reversed, and ran over the victims before fleeing, resulting in Erlinda’s death and Rolando’s injuries. The car, registered to Armando Bautista, was recovered stained with blood. Severino Baltazar filed a murder complaint against Bautista. After preliminary investigation, the MTC recommended dismissing the murder charge based on a sworn statement from Joel Santos admitting he was the driver. The Provincial Prosecutor, however, found probable cause for murder and filed an Information against Bautista. The RTC issued a warrant for his arrest.
During proceedings, Bautista filed a Petition for Review with the DOJ. While this was pending, he was arrested. Subsequently, the Acting DOJ Secretary issued a Resolution reversing the Provincial Prosecutor, finding no probable cause for murder and directing the withdrawal of the Information. Based on this, the RTC granted the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information. Baltazar’s Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion to Withdraw the Information for Murder based on the DOJ Resolution.

RULING

No. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the distinct roles of the prosecutor and the judge concerning criminal informations. The prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether there is probable cause to file an information. Once an information is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction. However, the court’s duty to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is separate from the prosecutor’s finding. A motion to withdraw an information before arraignment should generally be granted if the prosecution, in good faith, believes the evidence does not warrant conviction, provided the court agrees. The trial court’s approval of the withdrawal, based on the DOJ’s finding of a lack of probable cause after a reinvestigation, was a sound exercise of judicial discretion. The Court found no showing that the prosecution’s motion was filed in bad faith or that the trial court’s action was capricious or whimsical. The primordial duty to prosecute lies with the public prosecutor, and courts should not unduly interfere with this executive function absent a clear case of grave abuse.