GR L 44723; (September, 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.
When the Fiscal filed a second motion to dismiss, which was again denied, he manifested he would not prosecute the case and disauthorized any private prosecutor. This prompted petitioner to file this mandamus action 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 Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, ordering the respondent fiscal to continue prosecuting the case. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct roles and jurisdictions of the prosecuting fiscal and the trial court after an information is filed. While the fiscal has broad discretion on whether to initially file a criminal information, once the case is filed in court, control over its disposition shifts to the court. The court acquires jurisdiction and has the sole discretion to grant or deny a motion to dismiss. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court by refusing to prosecute after his motion is denied.
The Court emphasized that the fiscal’s duty to prosecute under his direction and control is mandatory under the Rules of Court. His refusal to proceed, based solely on the Secretary of Justice’s directive contrary to the court’s ruling, undermines judicial authority and voids the proceedings. The proper course for the fiscal is to continue the prosecution, presenting evidence to enable the court to independently judge the case’s merits. The Secretary of Justice should refrain from reviewing a fiscal’s action once an information is filed in court to avoid conflict with judicial discretion. Thus, mandamus lies to compel the performance of this ministerial duty to prosecute.