View full case

NILO HIPOS v. RTC JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY

FACTS:

On 15 December 2003, the petitioners were charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness. On 23 February 2004, the private complainants filed a motion for reinvestigation and the court granted their motion. On 10 August 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor affirmed the charges against the petitioners. However, on 3 March 2006, the 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor reversed the resolution and held that there was lack of probable cause. The City Prosecutor then filed a motion to withdraw the informations before the trial court. On 2 October 2006, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the informations. The petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to grant the motion to withdraw.

In this case, the Petition for Mandamus is filed against the trial court, seeking to compel the court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations filed by the City Prosecutor's Office. The prosecution has already filed a case against the petitioners. The Supreme Court cited the case of Sanchez, wherein the court held that even the Supreme Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. However, in cases where there is an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, a petition for mandamus can be filed to compel the filing of charges. In Santos v. Orda, Jr., the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine established in the case of Crespo v. Mogul, that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition or dismissal of the case rests within the jurisdiction and discretion of the trial court. The trial court has the option to grant or deny a motion to dismiss the case filed by the public prosecutor. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right to due process. The trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss is not out of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice, but a sound exercise of its judicial prerogative. The petitioner's argument that the trial court should have deferred to the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor to withdraw the case was also debunked by the Supreme Court. The case cited by the petitioners, People v. Montesa, Jr., involved a judge who granted a motion for reinvestigation and directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct it. The judge, however, decided to dismiss the case despite the ongoing reinvestigation and the disapproval of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor's resolution by the Provincial Prosecutor. The Supreme Court held that the judge should have waited for the conclusion of the reinvestigation before deciding on the dismissal of the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the judge should wait for the conclusion of the Petition for Reinvestigation before dismissing the case and proceeding with the arraignment.

  2. Whether the judge is allowed to deny a Motion to Withdraw Informations when there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors moving for such withdrawal.

  3. Whether or not the trial judge erred in ruling to proceed with the trial without stating his reasons for disregarding the secretary's recommendation.

  4. Whether or not the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Information is void in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors.

  5. Whether the petitioners' resort to a Petition for Mandamus to compel the trial judge to grant their Motion to Withdraw Informations is proper.

  6. Whether there was probable cause against the petitioners sufficient to hold them for trial.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the judge should wait for the conclusion of the Petition for Reinvestigation before dismissing the case and proceeding with the arraignment.

  2. The judge is allowed to deny a Motion to Withdraw Informations even if there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors moving for such withdrawal.

  3. Yes, the trial judge erred in ruling to proceed with the trial without stating his reasons for disregarding the secretary's recommendation. The trial judge failed to make an independent and complete assessment of the merits of the motion to dismiss, as required by law. The judge's failure to evaluate the secretary's recommendation constituted reversible error or even grave abuse of discretion.

  4. No, the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Information is not void in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors. The trial court is not bound by the secretary's recommendation, but it must still evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the secretary's ruling is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

  5. The petitioners' resort to a Petition for Mandamus to compel the trial judge to grant their Motion to Withdraw Informations is improper. Mandamus is only available to compel action on matters involving judgment and discretion when refused, but it is never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken.

  6. The trial court correctly found that there is indeed probable cause against the petitioners sufficient to hold them for trial. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's independent assessment of the merits of the case and decided not to provide a detailed discussion of the case's merits to avoid undue influence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The trial court in a criminal case must act on the resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor's finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon only upon proof that such resolution is already final and was not appealed to the Department of Justice.

  • Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court.

  • The prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, but cannot impose his opinion on the court. The court is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case.

  • A motion to dismiss filed by the prosecutor should be addressed to the discretion of the court. The court's action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law.

  • The judge should wait for a final resolution of the Petition for Reinvestigation before dismissing the case and proceeding with the arraignment.

  • The judge is allowed to deny a Motion to Withdraw Informations even if there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors moving for such withdrawal.

  • In resolving a motion to dismiss, the trial court must make an independent and complete assessment of the merits of the motion. The trial court is not bound by the prosecutor's recommendation and must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial.

  • The denial of a Motion to Withdraw Information is not automatically void in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors. The trial court must still evaluate the motion and not simply proceed with the trial based solely on the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

  • The fallo of a decision prevails over the body of the decision, but when the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is clear and shows a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision prevails (rule of precedent).

  • Mandamus is available to compel action on matters involving judgment and discretion when refused, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken.

  • The trial court, when confronted with a Motion to Withdraw an Information on the ground of lack of probable cause, is not bound by the resolution of the prosecuting arm of the government, but is required to make an independent assessment of the merits of such motion.

  • The Supreme Court may review the finding of probable cause by the trial court, even if not requested, and determine whether there is indeed probable cause sufficient to hold the accused for trial.