SEC 5 In Crespo vs.

In Crespo vs. Mogul,the Court emphasized the cardinal jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not bound by such
principle that the Public Prosecutor controls and directs the resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding
prosecution of criminal offenses. Decisions or further with the trial. While the Secretary's ruling is
RHODORA M. LEDESMA, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HON.
resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the persuasive, it is not binding on courts. A trial court, however,
MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, in his capacity as Presiding
Secretary ofJustice. Where the Secretary of Justice exercises commits reversible error or even grave abuse of discretion if
Judge of RTC, Quezon City,
his power of review only after an information has been filed, it refuses/neglects to evaluate such recommendation and
trial courts should defer or suspend arraignment and further simply insists on proceeding with the trial on the mere
A complaint for libel was filed by Dr. Juan F. Torres, Jr. against proceedings until the appeal is resolved. Such deferment or pretext of having already acquired jurisdiction over the
Dr. Rhodora M. Ledesma, herein petitioner, before the suspension, however, does not signify that the criminal action.
Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. An Information for Libel was trial court is ipso facto bound by the resolution of the
thereafter filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor against Secretary of Justice.
ID.;CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION;
petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. A In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals,the Court ruled that, the
OBJECTIVE PRIMARY THEREOF. — The
petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor was trial court has the option to grant or deny the motion to
determination of probable cause during a preliminary
filed by petitioner before the Department of Justice pursuant dismiss the case filed by the Fiscal, whether before or after the
investigation is judicially recognized as an executive function
to P.D. No. 77, as amended by P.D. No. 911. The arraignment of the accused, and whether after a
and is made by the prosecutor. The primary objective of a
Department of Justice gave due course to the petition and reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary who
preliminary investigation is to free a respondent from the
directed the Quezon City Prosecutor to move for reviewed the records of the investigation, provided that such
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending
deferment of further proceedings and to elevate the entire grant or denial is made from its own assessment and
himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the
records of the case. Accordingly, a "Motion to Defer evaluation of the merits of the motion.
reasonable probability of his or her guilt has been passed
Arraignment" was filed and granted by the
upon in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent
trial court deferring petitioner's arraignment. Without the
Ineluctably, Judge Asuncion's denial of the motion to officer designated by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such
consent or approval of the trial prosecutor, private
withdraw the information and the reconsideration thereof summary proceeding also protects the State from the
complainant filed a Motion to Lift the Order and to Set the
was not only precipitate but manifestly erroneous. This is burden of unnecessary expense and effort in prosecuting
Case for Arraignment/Trial. The trial courtissued an Order
further compounded by the fact that he did not explain his alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false,
scheduling petitioner's arraignment. In a resolution, the
grounds for his denial inasmuch as he did not make an frivolous or groundless charges.
Secretary of Justice reversed the Quezon City Investigating
independent assessment of the motion or the arguments in
Prosecutor. The Trial Prosecutor then filed a Motion to
the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. All in all, such rash
Withdraw Information attaching thereto the resolution of the
action did not do justice to the sound ruling in Crespo vs.
Department Secretary. The trial judge, however, denied the
Mogul upon which, ironically, he supposedly rested his action,
motion. Hence, this recourse, petitioner failing to make an
or to the directive in Marcelo and Martinez where
assignment of errors against the appellate court.
this Court required trial courts to make an independent
assessment of the merits of the motion.
The determination of probable cause during a preliminary
investigation is recognized as an executive function. Such
REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO
investigation is not a part of the trial. By reason of the MANUEL V. BAVIERA,[Link] PAGLINAWAN
WITHDRAW INFORMATION; ON
abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a
GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE; DUTY OF THE
dismissalof the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to MANUEL V. BAVIERA,[Link] CHARTERED BANK
TRIAL COURT. — When confronted with a motion to withdraw
a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double
an information on the ground oflack of probable cause based
jeopardy attaches.
on a resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the bounden FACTS: Manuel Baviera, petitioner in these cases, was the
duty of the trial court is to make an independent former head of the HR Service Delivery andIndustrial Relations
assessment of the merits of such motion. Having acquired
1
of Standard Chartered Bank-Philippines. SCB did not comply of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in information, shall be prosecutedunder the direction and
with the conditions setforth by the BSP. Although holding that the complaint should have been filed with the control of a public prosecutor. This mandate is founded on the
unregistered with the SEC, SCB was able to sell securities [Link] January 7, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated its theory that a crimeis a breach of the security and peace of the
worth around P6billion to some 645 [Link] Decision dismissing the petition. It sustainedthe ruling of the people at large, an outrage against the very sovereignty of
entered into an Investment Trust Agreement with SCB DOJ that the case should have been filed initially with the SEC theState. It follows that a representative of the State shall
wherein he purchased US$8,000.00 worth of securities upon direct and control the prosecution of the offense. Apublic
the bank’s promise of 40% return on his investment and a prosecutor is in a peculiar and very definite sense a servant of
Meanwhile, on February 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals
guarantee that hismoney is safe. After six (6) months, the law, the twofold aim of which isthat guilt shall not escape
rendered its Decision involving petitioner’scharges and
however, petitioner learned that the value of his investment or innocence [Link] v. Platon
respondents’ counter chargesdismissing the petitions on the
went downto US$7,000.00. He tried to withdraw his
ground that the purpose of apetition for certiorari is not to
investment but was persuaded by Antonette de los Reyes of
evaluate and weigh the parties’ evidence but to determine Concomitant with his authority and power to control the
SCBto hold on to it for another six (6) months in view of the
whether theassailed Resolution of the DOJ was issued with prosecution of criminal offenses, the publicprosecutor is
possibility that the market would pick up. The trendin the
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. vested with the discretionary power to determine whether
securities market, however, was bearish and the worth of
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was denied a prima faciecase exists or not. A preliminary investigation is
petitioner’s investment went down furtherto only
.Hence, the instant petitions for review on certiorari. essentially an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has
US$3,[Link] October 26, 2001, Petitioner then filed with
been committed; and (b) whether there is probable cause
the BSP a letter-complaint demanding compensation forhis
that the accused is guilty thereof. Thus, the decision whether
lost investment. But SCB denied his demand on the ground ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
ornot to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused
that his investment is "regular."On July 15, 2003, petitioner concluding that the DOJ did not commit grave abuseof
depends on the sound discretion of [Link] rule in
filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), represented herein discretion in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for; violation of
this jurisdiction is that courts will not interfere with the
by itsprosecutors, public respondents, a complaint charging Securities Regulation Code and for syndicated estafa.
conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations or in
the above-named officers and members of the SCBBoard of
the determination of what constitutes sufficient probable
Directors and other SCB officials, private respondents, with
HELD : (For violation of Securities Regulation Code) NO. The cause for the filing of thecorresponding information against
syndicatedestafa.
Court of Appeals held that under Section53.1 of the said Code an offender. Courts are not empowered to substitute their
provides, a criminal complaint for violation of any law or rule own judgmentfor that of the executive branch. The
For their part,private respondents filed the following as administered by theSEC must first be filed with the latter. If prosecutor’s findings on the existence of probable cause are
counter-charges against petitioner: (1) blackmail and the Commission finds that there is probable cause, then it not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently
extortionand blackmail and [Link] September 29, 2003, shouldrefer the case to the DOJ. Since petitioner failed to shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. In
petitioner also filed a complaint for perjury against private .On comply with the foregoing procedural requirement, theDOJ Suarez previously cited, this Court made it clear that a public
February 7, 2004, petitioner also filed with the DOJ a did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing his prosecutor’s duty is [Link] one hand, he is bound by his
complaint for violation of Section 8.1 of theSecurities [Link] the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts oath of office to prosecute persons where the complainant’s
Regulation Code against private respondents,On February 23, will not determine a controversy involving a questionwithin evidence is ample and sufficient to show prima facie guilt of a
2004, the DOJ rendered its Joint Resolution dismissing all the the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, where the crime. Yet, on the other hand, he is likewise duty-boundto
complaints and counter-charges filed the herein question demands the exercise of soundadministrative protect innocent persons from groundless, false, or malicious
[Link] filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for discretion requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise prosecution.
certiorari alleging that the DOJ acted with graveabuse of of said administrative tribunalto determine technical and
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in intricate matters of fact
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitions and AFFIRM the assailed
dismissing his complaint for syndicatedestafa and a separate
Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87328 and
petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ Resolution dismissing
(For Syndicated Estafa)NO. Section 5, Rule 110 of the 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85078
the case for violationof the Securities Regulation
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,provides that all
[Link] claimed that the DOJ acted with grave abuse
criminal actions, commenced by either a complaint or an
2
MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner, vs. HON. LEODEGARIO discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing the criminal In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the
L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of
LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF THE prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary
PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, persons. 19 It cannot be controlled by the complainant. of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from
RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL. entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of
the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already
However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without
been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the
FACTS: any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval
determination of the Court.
of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as
Petitioner Mario Crespo was accused for Estafa in the Circuit the case maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the
Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (PP) VS HON. DELFIN SUNGA,
arraignment, the accused filed a motion for defer arraignment reverse the action or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently the PRESIDING JUDGE, ANADILLA
on the ground that there was a pending petition for review Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the
filed with the Secretary of Justice. However, Justice Mogul case be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be
FACTS
denied the motion, but the arraignment was deferred in a filed in Court.
much later date to afford time for the petitioner to elevate -Information for Attempted Homicide by Provincial Fiscal of
the mater to the appellate court. Camarines Sur against Anadilla’s
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a
criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with -Offended party no longer interested in further prosecution,
the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the
prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction to the CA. The CA
case. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for -he has already forgiven the accused
ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the
the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists
arraignment until further orders of the Court. Undersecretary -witnesses could no longer be contacted, without their
warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon
of Justice, Hon. Catalino Macaraig Jr., resolved the petition for testimonies, guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond
the filing of the information in the proper court.
review reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial
reasonable doubt
Fiscal and directed the Fiscal to move for immediate dismissal
of the information filed against the accused. Judge Mogul The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint - no objection from accused, case is DISMISSED
denied the motion for dismissal of the case ad set the or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as
arraignment. The accused then filed a petition for Certiorari, its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests -Arrest order lifted, no force and effect
prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining retains the direction and control of the prosecution of --warden order to release accused from detention
order in the CA. The CA dismissed the order and lifted the criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he
restraining order. cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the -provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration, court a quo
best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The denied
determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction
Issue: Whether the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to
and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the ISSUE
dismiss filed by the Fiscal under orders from, the Secretary of
fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to
Justice and insists on arraignment and trial on the merits.
grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done WON criminal case be dismissed by the affidavit of desistance
before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the
HELD:It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions by offended party, without motion to dismiss by the
commenced by complaint or by information shall be of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the prosecuting fiscal
prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. 17 investigation.
The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound HELD
3
In the case at bar, the court has taken note that before the undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is
case was set for trial, almost ten years had elapsed. in Quezon City. revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

-no unusual for the offended party that his material witnesses On the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case, Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the
could no longer be found, but without their testimony the Pinote refused to cross-examine the two defense witnesses, Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly
guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt despite being ordered by Judge Ayco, maintaining that prior prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. It is on
proceedings conducted in his absence were void. Judge Ayco this account that the presence of a public prosecutor in the
-While Crespo Doctrine has settled that the trial court is the
considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross- trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state
sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed
examine the two defense witnesses. interests, foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule
(after the complaint or information has been filed in court)
of law, the bedrock of peace of the people.
still any move on the part of the complainant or offended Hence, arose the present administrative complaint lodged by
party to dismiss the criminal case even if without the Pinote against Judge Ayco for “Gross Ignorance of the Law, Judge Ayco’s intention to uphold the right of the accused to a
objection of the accused should first be referred to the Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.” speedy disposition of the case, no matter how noble it may
prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter. He is after be, cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If the accused is
ISSUE:
all in control of the prosecution of the case and he may have entitled to due process, so is the State.
Whether or not Judge Ayco violated the Rules on Criminal
his own reasons why the case should not be dismissed. It is
Judge Ayco’s lament about Pinote’s failure to inform
Procedure for allowing the defense to present evidence in the
only after hearing the prosecuting fiscal’s view that the Court
the court of his inability to attend the hearings or to file a
absence of a prosecutor
should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or dismiss
motion for postponement thereof or to subsequently file a
the case. HELD:
motion for reconsideration of his Orders allowing the defense
STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR PINOTE V JUDGE ROBERTO As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted to present its two witnesses on said dates may be mitigating.
AYCO under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. If the It does not absolve Judge Ayco of his utter disregard of the
schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however, Rules.
FACTS
or in case there are no public prosecutors, a private
Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of South
prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Cotabato allowed the defense in a criminal case to present
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution Office to
evidence consisting of the testimony of two witnesses, even
prosecute the case, subject to the approval of the court. Once JOEL CAES VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
in the absence of State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote who was
so authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to
FACTS
prosecuting the case. State Prosecutor Pinote was at that time
prosecute the case until the termination of the trial even in

4
-petitioner charged with illegal possession of firearms and even parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to the It has been held in a long line of cases that to constitute
illegal possession of marijuana before court of first instance action. Their only function is to testify. In a criminal double jeopardy, there must be: (a) a valid complaint or
rizal prosecution, the plaintiff is represented by the government information; (b) filed before a competent court; (c) to which
prosecutor, or one acting under his authority, and by no one the defendant had pleaded; and (d) of which he had been
-Trial was postponed for several time due to the absence of
else. previously acquitted or convicted or which was dismissed or
either the fiscal or the witnesses, or agree0judgement
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
between the parties. It follows that the motion for the revival of the cases filed by
prosecution witnesses (who never even testified) should have There is no question that the first three requisites are present
-prosectution moved for the provisional dismissal, Lower
been summarily dismissed by the trial judge. The mere fact in the case at bar. What we must resolve is the effect of the
court dismissed the case
that the government prosecutor was furnished a copy of the dismissal, which the petitioner contends finally and
-Witnesses filed motion to revived the case
motion and he did not interpose any objection was not irrevocably terminated the two cases against him. His
-motion for revival of the case was granted enough to justify the action of these witnesses. The submission is that the dismissal was not provisional simply
prosecutor should have initiated the motion himself if he because it was so designated, more so since he had not
The petitioner questioned the judge's order on certiorari with
thought it proper. The presumption that he approved of the expressly consented thereto.
this Court, which referred his petition to the respondent
motion is not enough, especially since we are dealing here
court. The petition there was dismissed for lack of merit on The circumstance that the dismissal of the cases against the
with the liberty of a person who had a right at least to be
May 20, 1986, and reconsideration was denied on June petitioner was described by the trial judge as "provisional" did
notified of the move to prosecute him again. The fact that he
17,1986. Caes then came to us again. not change the nature of that dismissal. As it was based on the
was not so informed made the irregularity even more serious.
"lack of interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent delay
The present petition is based on two arguments, to wit: (a)
It is curious that the motion was granted just the same, and
in the trial of the cases, it was final and operated as an
that the motion to revive the cases was invalid because it was
ex parte at that and without hearing, and the petitioner's
acquittal of the accused on the merits. No less importantly,
not filed by the proper party nor was a copy served on the
subsequent objection was brushed aside.
there is no proof that Caes expressly concurred in the
petitioner; and (b) the revival of the cases would place the
Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey," the right provisional dismissal. Implied consent, as we have repeatedly
petitioner in double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of Rights.
against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a person held, is not enough;
HELD
for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or
neither may it be lightly inferred from the presumption of
The witnesses, even if they are the complaining witnesses, convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of the first
regularity, for we are dealing here with the alleged waiver of
cannot act for the prosecutor in the handling of the case. prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall
a constitutional right. Any doubt on this matter must be
Although they may ask for the filing of the case, they have no not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a
resolved in favor of the accused.
personality to move for its dismissal or revival as they are not second charge against him for the same offense.

5
We conclude that the trial judge erred in ordering the revival escape the penalties of the law simply because he may now (so far) of the prosecution in this case, this Court hereby
of the cases against the petitioner and that the respondent validly claim the protection of double jeopardy. In either resolves to grant the motion for bail presented by Atty.
Bernardito A. Florido, and to this end hereby fixes the
court also erred in affirming that order. Caes having been event, the responsibility clearly lies with the Office of the City
bailbond for the accused Rey Christopher Paclibar at
denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and not having Prosecutor of Caloocan City for its negligence and ineptitude. P50,000.00.
expressly consented to the "provisional" dismissal of the cases
against him, he was entitled to their final dismissal under the "SO ORDERED
PEOPLE v. RENATO C. DACUDAO
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy
"4. From the foregoing Order, private prosecutor Alex R.
The Court expresses its stern disapproval of the conduct in Monteclar filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that
"1. On August 11, 1987, an Information for Murder with the
these cases of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan "THE GRANTING OF BAIL TO THE ACCUSED WITHOUT A
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
HEARING IS VIOLATIVE OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS,
City which reveals at the very least a lack of conscientiousness premeditation was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
HENCE, NULL AND VOID' and thus praying, as follows:
Cebu, Branch XIV, presided by respondent Judge Renato
in the discharge of its duties. The informations appear to have
C. Dacudao, against accused Rey Christopher Paclibar and
been filed in haste, without first insuring the necessary Nero Desamparado for the death of Cesarlito Nolasco. The WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, it is respectfully
evidence to support them. The prosecution witnesses case was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-11463. Upon prayed of this Honorable Court to:
arraignment, accused Rey Christopher Paclibar entered a plea
repeatedly failed to appear at the scheduled hearings and all
of 'not guilty' to the offense charged. "'1. Reconsider its order dated 29th September 1987 granting
the prosecution did was to perfunctorily move for a resetting,
bail to the accused Rey Christopher Paclibar and set it aside
without exerting earnest efforts to secure their attendance. In "2. On September 18, 1987, accused Rey Christopher Paclibar for being null and void;
the end, it moved for the "provisional" dismissal of the cases filed a motion for bail, furnishing the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu
with a copy thereof. "'2. To order the immediate hearing of the Motion to Bail to
without realizing, because it had not studied the matter more
determine whether the evidence for the prosecution would
carefully, that such dismissal would have the effect of barring
"3. On September 29, 1987, and without conducting a hearing warrant the denial of bail;
their reinstatement. Characteristically, it was also non- in the application for bail, respondent Judge summarily issued
committal on the motion to revive the cases filed by the the following Order: "'3. To recommit the accused to jail (CPDRC) immediately until
prosecution witnesses only, thereby surrendering, by its own such time the Honorable Court shall have resolved the Motion
ORDER to Bail.'
silence, its authority in conducting the prosecution.

It is possible that as a result of its inattention, the petitioner "Considering the motion for bail and the opposition thereto, "5. Acting on the motion for reconsideration and the
has been needlessly molested if not permanently stigmatized and, on the basis of the complaint at bar and the sworn opposition thereto filed by accused Rey Christopher Paclibar,
statement of Patrolman Elpidio Desquitado, Tadeo Abello and respondent judge issued on November 20, 1987 the following
by the unproved charges. The other possibility, and it is
Romeo Torrizo, all of the Integrated National Police, Bantayan order:
certainly worse, is that a guilty person has been allowed to (Cebu) Police Station, which constitute the essential evidence

6
"'ORDER abuse of discretion in refusing to recommit the accused Rey established unless the prosecution submits the issue on
Christopher Paclibar to jai] during the pendency of the hearing whatever it has already presented. To appreciate the strength
"'The Court hereby resolves to hold in abeyance its resolution of the motion to bail." (p. 6, Petition). or weakness of the evidence of guilt, the prosecution must be
on the Prosecution's motion for reconsideration of the Court's consulted or heard. It is equally entitled as the accused to due
order dated September 29, 1987 granting bail to the accused, Before resolving this issue, we must stress that a private process.
pending the presentation by the Prosecution of evidence, prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority to act for
which it promised to present, in support of its proposition that the People of the Philippines before this Court. It is the Thus, this Court, in People v. San Diego (26 SCRA 522 [1968]),
the evidence of guilt against the accused in this case is strong, Government's counsel, the Solicitor General who appears m held:
and that therefore the accused should not have been criminal cases or the incidents before the Supreme Court. At
admitted to bail. Unless and until the prosecution adduces the the very least, the Provincial Fiscal himself, with the "The question presented before us is, whether the
requisite evidence, the Court sees no reason to reconsider its conformity of the Solicitor General, should have raised the prosecution was deprived of procedural due process. The
order of September 29, 1987 which was predicated upon the issue before us, instead of the private prosecutor with the answer is in the affirmative. We are of the considered opinion
postulate that the Prosecution evidence thus far attached to conformity of one of the Assistant Provincial Fiscals of Cebu. that whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in
the records does not make out a very strong case for murder, In the interest of a speedy determination of the case, custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary
as this evidence consists simply of the sworn statement of Pat. however, and considering the stand taken by the Office of the proceeding or in the course of a regular trial the prosecution
Desquitado, Tadeo Abello and Romeo Torrizo, of the INP, Solicitor General whom we asked to comment, we have must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable
Bantayan, Cebu, none of whom, by their own account, decided to resolve this petition on its merits, with a warning time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before
witnesses (sic) the slaying of the deceased Lito Nolasco by the to the private prosecutor and the Assistant Provincial Fiscal to the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the
accused Rey Christopher Paclibar. follow the correct procedure in the future. LLphil criminal case involved in the instant special civil action, the
prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there
"'The Court hereby gives the prosecution five (5) days from would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order
receipt of this order within which to submit a pleading or of the court granting bail should be considered void on that
motion for reconsideration of the ruling of the Court. The respondent court acted irregularly in granting bail in a ground. The orders complained of dated October 7, 9 and 12,
murder case without any hearing on the motion asking for it, 1968, having been issued in violation of procedural due
"'In the meantime reset the continuation of the hearing of this without bothering to ask the prosecution for its conformity or process, must be considered null and void.
case on December 16, 1987 at 2:30 P.M. Fiscal Napoleon comment, and, as it turned out later, over its strong
Alburo, Attys. Alex Monteclar and Bernardito Florido, as well objections. The court granted bail on the sole basis of the "The court's discretion to grant bail in capital offenses must
as Atty. Amado Olis are all notified of this order in open court. complaint and the affidavits of three policemen, not one of be exercised in the light of a summary of the evidence
The accused is similarly notified. Notify the bondsman of the whom apparently witnessed the killing. Whatever the court presented by the prosecution; otherwise, it would be
accused. possessed at the time it issued the questioned ruling was uncontrolled and might be capricious or whimsical. Hence,
intended only for prima facie determining whether or not the court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a
"'SO ORDERED.'" (pp. 95-98, Rollo). there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its
that the crime was committed and pinpointing the persons conclusion whether of not the evidence of guilt is strong. The
who probably committed it. Whether or not the evidence of orders of October 7, 9 and 12, 1968, granting bail to the five
The petitioner now advances the following issue: that
guilt is strong for each individual accused still has to be defendants are defective in form and substance because they
"Respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave
7
do not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the 13 of the Constitution, "capital offenses" is replaced by the Finally, the defense contends that the Judge did not commit
prosecution. They only contain the court's conclusion that the phrase "offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua." llcd any error because actually the complaint in the Municipal
evidence of guilt is not strong. Being thus defective in form Circuit Trial Court is for homicide only (Annex A. p. 60, Rollo),
and substance, the orders complained of cannot, also on this Bail is not a matter of rights as regards persons charged with and the recommended Information was also for homicide
ground, be allowed to stand." (at p. 524; Italic supplied) offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence (Annex B, p. 61, Rollo). We note, however, that when the
of guilt is strong. thus, Sec. 5, Art. 114 of the Rules of Criminal same was filed with the Regional Trial Court, it was already an
Certain guidelines in the fixing of a bailbond call for the Procedure requires a hearing before resolving a motion for information for murder. LexLib
presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity for the bail by persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
prosecution to refute it. Among them are the nature and perpetua where the prosecution may discharge its burden of The amendment or changing of an information prior to the
circumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. The case at bar, plea of the accused is allowed there being no prejudice to him.
accused, the weight of the evidence against him, the which is murder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, in the case of Gaspar v. Sandiganbayan (144 SCRA 415
probability of the accused appearing at the trial, whether or [1986]), this Court held that, "no actual double jeopardy exists
not the accused is a fugitive from justice, and whether or not In its comment, the defense interposes an objection to the where the petitioner had not yet pleaded guilty to the
the accused is under bond in other cases. (Section 6, Rule 144, petition on the ground that it is premature and therefore, offense.
Rules of Court) It is highly doubtful if the trial court can should be dismissed. It contends that certiorari will not lie
appreciate these guidelines in an ex-parte determination unless the inferior court has, through a motion for WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The order
where the Fiscal is neither present nor heard. reconsideration, the opportunity to correct the errors granting bail is SET ASIDE and the accused is ordered
imputed to it. The general rule is that a motion for recommitted to jail pending the hearing on the bail
The effort of the court to remedy the situation by conducting reconsideration should first be availed of before a petition for application.
the required hearing after ordering the release of the accused certiorari and prohibition is filed. (Cebu Institute of
may be a face-saving device for the Judge but it cannot serve Technology [CIT] v. Ople, 156 SCRA 629 [1987]) However, this 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO BAIL;
the purpose of validating the void order granting bail and rule does not apply when special circumstances warrant PROSECUTION DEPRIVED OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; ALL
stamping an imprimatur of approval on a clearly irregular immediate or more direct action. A motion for GRANTED TO ACCUSED WITHOUT HEARING. — The
procedure. reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases like this were respondent court acted irregularly in granting bail in a murder
execution has been ordered and the need for relief is case without any hearing on the motion asking for it, without
The defense counsel insists that the accused should be extremely urgent (Phil. British Assurance Co. Inc. v. bothering to ask the prosecution for its conformity or
entitled to bail considering the abolition of the death penalty Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 520 [1989]). In the comment, and, as it turned out later, over its strong
in the 1986 Constitution. He advances the argument that due case at bar, the petitioner is left with no plain, speedy, and objections. The court granted bail on the sole basis of the
to the abolition of the death penalty, murder is no longer a adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law considering complaint and the affidavits of three policemen, not one of
capital offense being no longer punishable with death. This is that the respondent court insists on the continuation of the whom apparently witnessed the killing. Whatever the court
erroneous because although the Constitution states that the hearing of the criminal case even while the accused is free to possessed at the time it issued the questioned ruling was
death penalty may not be imposed unless a law orders its roam around. Moreover, there is an allegation that the intended only for prima facie determining whether or not
imposition for heinous crimes (Constitution, Art. II, Section 19 accused is harassing, threatening and coercing witnesses who there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
[1]), it does not follow that all persons accused of any crime are now afraid to testify. (pp. 87-88, Rollo). that the crime was committed and pinpointing the persons
whatsoever now have an absolute right to bail. In Art. III, Sec. who probably committed it. Whether or not the evidence of

8
guilt is strong for each individual accused still has to be rule is that a motion for reconsideration should first be availed PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE
established unless the prosecution submits the issue on of before a petition for certiorari and prohibition is filed. RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ and
whatever it has already presented. To appreciate the strength (Cebu Institute of Technology [CIT] v. Ople, 156 SCRA 629 HAJIME UMEZAWA, respondents.
or weakness of the evidence of guilt, the prosecution must be [1987]) However, this rule does not apply when special
consulted or heard. It is equally entitled as the accused to due circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. A Umezawa, then the President and General Manager of MPI,
process. motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases organized another company with his wife Kimiko, and his
sister, Mitsuyo Yaguchi, to be known as Astem Philippines
like this were execution has been ordered and the need for
Corporation, without knowledge of the Board of Directors of
2. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; FIXING OF relief is extremely urgent (Phil. British Assurance Co. Inc. v.
MPI. The said company would be engaged in the same
BAILBOND; GUIDELINES THEREFOR. — Certain guidelines in Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 520 [1989]). In the business as Mobilia. Umezawa stole products from MPI
the fixing of a bailbond call for the presentation of evidence case at bar, the petitioner is left with no plain, speedy, and amounting to P3,219,[Link] and public prosecutor filed
and reasonable opportunity for the prosecution to refute it. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law considering criminal complaints against Umezawa. The trial court asserted
that the respondent court insists on the continuation of the that the controversy involving the criminal cases was between
Among them are the nature and circumstances of the crime,
hearing of the criminal case even while the accused is free to Umezawa and the other stockholders of MPI. It also held that
character and reputation of the accused, the weight of the the SEC, not the trial court, had jurisdiction over intra-
evidence against him, the probability of the accused roam around. Moreover, there is an allegation that the
corporate [Link] affirmed the ruling of the RTC that
appearing at the trial, whether or not the accused is a fugitive accused is harassing, threatening and coercing witnesses who the dispute between Umezawa and the other stockholders
from justice, and whether or not the accused is under bond in are now afraid to testify. (pp. 87-88, Rollo). and officers over the implementation of the MPI’s standard
other cases. (Section 6, Rule 144, Rules of Court) It is highly procedure is intra-corporate in nature; hence, within the
doubtful if the trial court can appreciate these guidelines in an 5. ID.; AMENDMENT OR CHANGING OF INFORMATION; exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. The petitioner MPI filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari.
ex-parte determination where the Fiscal is neither present nor DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL NOT ATTACH WHERE ACCUSED HAD
heard. NOT YET PLEADED GUILTY. — The defense contends that the
Judge did not commit any error because actually the ISSUE:WON CA is correct.

3. ID.; ID.; BAILS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT; HEARING ON complaint in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court is for homicide
only (Annex A. p. 60, Rollo), and the recommended HELD: Patently, then, based on the material allegations of the
MOTION FOR BAIL, INDISPENSABLE. — Bail is not a matter of
Information was also for homicide (Annex B, p. 61, Rollo). We Informations, the court a quo had exclusive jurisdiction over
rights as regards persons charged with offenses punishable by the crimes charged. CA erred in holding that the dispute
reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. thus, note, however, that when the same was filed with the
between it and the respondentis intra-corporate in nature;
Sec. 5, Art. 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a Regional Trial Court, it was already an information for hence, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC.
hearing before resolving a motion for bail by persons charged murder. The amendment or changing of an information prior
As gleaned from the material allegations of the Informations, the RTC
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua where the to the plea of the accused is allowed there being no prejudice
had exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes
prosecution may discharge its burden of showing that the to him. Thus, in the case of Gaspar v. Sandiganbayan (144
charged. According to Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129 Regional Trial Courts
evidence of guilt is strong. The case at bar, which is murder, is SCRA 415 [1986]), this Court held that, "no actual double
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
punishable by reclusion perpetua. jeopardy exists where the petitioner had not yet pleaded within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunalor body,except
guilty to the offense. those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of
4. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken
MOBILIA PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. cognizance of by the latter. Case law has it that in order to determine
LIE IN CASE AT BAR; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MAY BE
HAJIME UMEZAWA, respondent. the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint or
DISPENSED WITH IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. — The general
Information must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining
9
whether or not the facts set out therein and the prescribed period
provided for bylaw are within the jurisdiction of the court, and where
the said Information or complaint is filed. It is settled that the
jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or Information and not by the findings
based on the evidence of the court after trial. Jurisdictionis conferred
only by the Constitution or by the law in force at the time of the filing
of the Information or complaint. Once jurisdiction is vested in the
court, it is retained up to the end of the litigation.

10