FACTS:

Damian Ogburn, an Australian citizen, was hired as a Senior Prawn Consultant by Moises L. Sycip for Sycip Plantation, Inc. (SPI), a prawn saltfarm. Ogburn recommended Ahab Balbon to be his understudy while Robert Vogel and Ignacio Tamayo were under contract with SPI to install water pumps. Ogburn, his wife, Vogel, Tamayo, and their cook were all billeted in the SPI guesthouse. On February 26, 1988, Ogburn allegedly took four giant prawns from an aquarium in the guesthouse and had them cooked for dinner. The next morning, Santiago Askin reported to Balbon what happened to the prawns, leading to a criminal complaint for qualified theft filed by P/Lt. Cesar Balderas against the petitioners. After a preliminary examination, warrants of arrest were issued and bail was fixed. The petitioners posted bail bonds and later filed a complaint against Judge Lomeda, Balderas, and Sycip. Judge Lomeda issued a resolution finding no sufficient ground for qualified theft but finding probable cause for malicious mischief. The case was reinvestigated by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Betinol, who affirmed Judge Lomeda's preliminary finding and lodged an information for malicious mischief. The petitioners filed a petition for review, which was dismissed. The Regional Trial Court reversed Judge Anasario's resolution and ordered the remand of the case for trial. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court erred in setting aside the resolution of the Municipal Trial Court (MCTC) dismissing the charge of malicious mischief.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court did not err in setting aside the resolution of the MCTC dismissing the charge of malicious mischief. The court held that the determination of whether or not an information must be lodged with the courts lies within the exclusive realm of the prosecution, free from the influence or intervention of the courts or quasi-judicial bodies. The conclusion of Prosecutor Betinol that the crime committed by the petitioners was malicious mischief was based on his own reinvestigation of the case and was not tainted with the errors and irregularities that infected the preliminary investigation conducted by Judge Lomeda.

PRINCIPLES:

• The determination of whether or not an information must be lodged with the courts lies within the exclusive realm of the prosecution, free from the influence or intervention of the courts or quasi-judicial bodies.