Scribd
Upload
104 views2 pages

Criminal Aspect: Rojas, Godfred Benjamin

An information was filed against Mario Crespo for estafa. When his arraignment date was set, Crespo requested it be deferred as he had a pending petition with the Secretary of Justice regarding the information. Judge Mogul denied the request and tried to proceed with arraignment, but was prevented by the Court of Appeals until Crespo's petition was resolved. Later, the provincial fiscal filed a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, which Judge Mogul denied and set an arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Mogul did not err by proceeding with arraignment despite the motion to dismiss, as only the court has authority to determine if a case should

Uploaded by

adee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
104 views2 pages

Criminal Aspect: Rojas, Godfred Benjamin

An information was filed against Mario Crespo for estafa. When his arraignment date was set, Crespo requested it be deferred as he had a pending petition with the Secretary of Justice regarding the information. Judge Mogul denied the request and tried to proceed with arraignment, but was prevented by the Court of Appeals until Crespo's petition was resolved. Later, the provincial fiscal filed a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, which Judge Mogul denied and set an arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Mogul did not err by proceeding with arraignment despite the motion to dismiss, as only the court has authority to determine if a case should

Uploaded by

adee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Rojas, Godfred Benjamin

CRIMINAL ASPECT
MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th
Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL,
RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.

June 30, 1987 G.R. No. L-53373 GANCAYCO, J.

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

An information was filed against Mario Crespo for estafa in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena. When the
arraignment date was set, the accused requested to the court for it to be deferred as he had a pending petition with
the Secretary of Justice with regards to the filing of the information by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. Judge
Leodegario Mogul denied the motion and tried to proceed with the arraignment but was prevented by the Court of
Appeals until the accused petition with the Department of Justice was resolved. The Undersecretary of Justice,
moved for the immediate dismissal of the information filed against accused thus a motion to dismiss was filed by
the provincial fiscal for insufficiency if evidence but was denied by Judge Mogul and set an arraignment. Accused
filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to prevent the arraignment and was granted but then
subsequently lifted. Hence the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Did Judge Mogul commit and error in setting an arraignment despite the petition to dismiss from the
Provincial Fiscal and letters from the Secretary of Justice with regards to the discrepancies in the filing of the
information?

Ruling: The Court ruled No. A filing of a Motion to Dismiss by the prosecution does not automatically entitle a
person an acquittal as only the Court can determine that. In the case at bar, Judge Mogul committed no error
in proceeding with the arraignment despite the Motion to Dismiss and the Undersecretary of Justice
recommending the dismissal of the petition. Only the Judge can determine whether to dismiss the petition or
proceed with the case.

Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of
the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the
Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the
case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive
jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to
the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or
after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

FACTS

• April 18, 1977: Information filed against Mario Crespo for Estafa, Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena
• When arraignment was set, accused asked for deferment due to a petition for review with the Secretary of
Justice of the of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filling of the information.
• Judge Mogul denied the motion and moved for arraignment but was prevented due to the May 15, 1978
decision of the Court of Appeals stating the court cannot proceed until the matter with the Department of
Justice has been resolved
• March 22, 1978: Undersecretary of Justice Macaraig moved for the dismissal of the information filed against
accused
• April 10, 1978: A motion to dismiss was filed by the Provincial Fiscal due to lack of evidence
• November 24, 1978: Judge Mogul denied the motion and moved for an arraignment
• January 23, 1979: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against Judge Mogul to
prevent the arraignment from occurring which was granted
• October 25, 1979: petition was lifted
• Hence the petition was sent to the Supreme Court for reconsideration to prevent an arraignment from
occuring

1
ISSUE

Did Judge Mogul commit and error in setting an arraignment despite the petition to dismiss from the Provincial
Fiscal and letters from the Secretary of Justice with regards to the discrepancies in the filing of the information?

RULING

The Court ruled No. The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby
acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after the filing of the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the accused. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by
the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the
Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits
proceed for the proper determination of the case. Thus, Judge Mogul is the person who can determine whether
to dismiss the case or not, upon acquiring jurisdiction.

A filing of a Motion to Dismiss by the prosecution does not automatically entitle a person an acquittal as only
the Court can determine that. In the case at bar, Judge Mogul committed no error in proceeding with the
arraignment despite the Motion to Dismiss and the Undersecretary of Justice recommending the dismissal of
the petition. Only the Judge can determine whether to dismiss the petition or proceed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy