GR L 44723; (August, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-44723 August 31, 1987
STA. ROSA MINING COMPANY, petitioner vs. ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL AUGUSTO ZABALA, in his capacity as OFFICER-IN-CHARGE of the Provincial Fiscal’s OFFICE of Camarines Norte, and GIL ALAPAN et. al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Mining Company filed a complaint for attempted theft against private respondents. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal found a prima facie case and filed an Information with the Court of First Instance. Private respondents sought a review by the Secretary of Justice, who, after the case was already filed in court, reversed the Fiscal’s finding and directed him to move for dismissal. The Fiscal complied, filing a motion to dismiss, but the trial court denied it, finding prima facie evidence and setting the case for trial.
After the denial of a second motion to dismiss, the respondent Fiscal, now in charge, manifested he would not prosecute the case and disauthorized any private prosecutor. This prompted petitioner to file the instant petition for mandamus to compel the Fiscal to prosecute Criminal Case No. 821 until its termination.
ISSUE
After a criminal case has been filed in court and the trial court denies the prosecuting fiscal’s motion to dismiss, can the fiscal be compelled to prosecute the case?
RULING
Yes, the fiscal can and must be compelled to prosecute. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct phases of criminal prosecution and the court’s control over a case once filed. While the discretion to initiate a criminal action rests with the investigating fiscal, this discretion ends upon the filing of the Information in court. From that point, the case falls under the court’s full control and discretion.
The court, having denied the motion to dismiss upon its independent finding of a prima facie case, has the sole authority to determine the case’s disposition. The fiscal’s duty is to proceed with the prosecution under his direction and control as mandated by the Rules of Court. He cannot abdicate this duty or impose his personal opinion, even if based on a directive from the Secretary of Justice, upon the court. The fiscal must present the state’s evidence to enable the court to make its own judgment on the accused’s culpability. The refusal to prosecute undermines the judicial process and would render any proceedings null and void. Therefore, the respondent Fiscal was ordered to continue prosecuting the criminal case.