Murao, Jose Pepito G.

III Topic: Jurisdiction upon Filing of Complaint

or Information cannot be Divested

Crespo v. Presiding Judge Mogul

G.R. No. L-53373 June 30, 1987
Gancayco, J:
FACTS:

 On April 18, 1997, Assistant Fiscal Gala filed an information for estafa against Mario
Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena but while the case was pending, accused
Crespo filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending
petition for review of the resolution of the Provincial Fiscal to file such information with
the Secretary of Justice.
 Respondent Hon. Leodegario Mogul denied accused motion to defer arraignment and
denied a motion for reconsideration of the same. However, the arraignment was
deferred to August 18, 1977 to afford time for petitioner to elevate the matter to the
appellate court.
 Accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction
to the CA and the CA, in an order, restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the
arraignment and such order was made final.
 The Undersecretary of Justice then resolved accused Crespo’s petition for review and
reversed the resolution of the Provincial Fiscal, directing the fiscal to dismiss the
information against accused Crespo for insufficiency of evidence and a motion to
dismiss was filed by the Provincial Fiscal.
 Despite the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice, Judge Mogul denied the motion
to dismiss and set the arraignment reasoning that due process and the independence
and integrity of the court dictate that the case against Crespo be resolved by evidence
before it and not by the determination of the Undersecretary of Justice.
 Hence, accused Crespo filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, with
the prayer for issuance of a preliminary writ of prohibition or TRO with the CA.
 CA issued a TRO against the threatened act of arraignment but it eventually lifted the
restraining order and denied accused Crespo’s motion for reconsideration, hence, this
petition for review.
 Second Division of SC transferred the case to the SC En Banc.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a trial court may be prevented from hearing a case upon the instructions
of the Secretary of Justice to the Provincial Fiscal to file a motion to dismiss?
HELD
1. NO. The filing of a complaint or information in court initiates criminal action and vests
jurisdiction to the court. After the filing of the case, a warrant for the arrest of the
accused or upon voluntary submission of the accused, the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person.
2. Preliminary investigation conducted by fiscal to determine whether a prima facie case
exists warranting prosecution of the accused is terminated upon filing of the information
in the proper court. While it is true that the fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion to
Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Jurisdiction upon Filing of Complaint
or Information cannot be Divested

determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court, once case has been
brought to court, the disposition of the case is under the court’s sound discretion.
3. That the Secretary of Justice who thinks that the case should be dismiss controls the
fiscal or prosecutor who will be assigned to the case is of no moment as despite of his
opinion, it is their duty to see that justice is served.
4. Although the fiscal or public prosecutor controls the prosecution, he cannot impose his
opinion on the court.
5. Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, with the prayer for issuance of a
preliminary writ of prohibition is DISMISSED.