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 for an unidentified borrower, but failed to account for or return the funds despite demands. After resigning, Avila offered a settlement involving the uncollected loan. The Manila City Fiscal’s Office initially dismissed the complaint but, upon review, ordered the filing of an information for estafa in the Regional Trial Court.
Avila sought relief from the Department of Justice. After the Undersecretary of Justice initially denied his petition for review, 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’s motion for reconsideration of this order was denied, prompting him to file this petition for certiorari.
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 committed grave abuse of 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 governs the jurisdiction over criminal cases once an information is filed in court. The legal logic is clear: upon the filing of the information, the trial court acquires complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Any subsequent disposition, including its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests solely within the sound discretion of the court.
While the prosecutor retains direction and control over the prosecution, this authority cannot be used to interfere with or impose upon the court’s judicial prerogatives. Consequently, a motion for reinvestigation after the court has acquired jurisdiction must be addressed to the trial judge, not to the Secretary or Undersecretary of Justice. The Department of Justice should, as a rule, refrain from entertaining petitions for review of a fiscal’s action once the case is already pending in court to avoid a conflict where the court may disregard the executive department’s opinion. The purpose of the reinvestigation—to allow Avila to present an alleged board resolution—can be adequately 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.