GR L 77850; (March, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77850-51 March 25, 1988
JUAN LOPEZ DUNGOG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PROVINCIAL FISCAL ENRIQUE B. INTING OF BOHOL, and PANTALEON U. DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a criminal complaint for estafa against private respondent Pantaleon del Rosario. After investigation, the Provincial Fiscal of Bohol filed an Information with the Regional Trial Court, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4319. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation. The Provincial Fiscal, reversing his earlier finding, concluded there was no prima facie case and filed an Omnibus Motion to withdraw the Information. The trial court, however, denied the motion to withdraw. The Provincial Fiscal and the private respondent then filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court’s orders and enjoined the judge from proceeding with the trial. The petitioner, the original complainant, elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether a trial court may deny a motion filed by the Provincial Fiscal to withdraw an information and insist on proceeding to trial on the merits.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the trial court’s orders. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, including its dismissal, rests in the sound discretion of the court. While the fiscal retains direction and control of the prosecution, this authority is not absolute and cannot be imposed upon the trial court. The fiscal’s quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether to file a case is distinct from the court’s power to control the proceedings once the case is lodged with it. The fiscal may move for dismissal, but the court must approve it. The court is not a mere rubber stamp; it has the judicial prerogative to deny the motion if it finds that the dismissal would not serve the ends of justice. The ruling in Crespo v. Mogul was cited, emphasizing that the court’s authority is paramount after the information is filed. The trial judge, having acquired jurisdiction, acted within his discretion in denying the withdrawal to allow a full hearing on the merits. The Provincial Fiscal was ordered to continue prosecuting the criminal case.