Hoey v. Provincial Fiscal of Rizal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Richard C. Hoey filed complaints against Raul Leveriza, Jr. and Henry Unson, Jr., officers of Manotoc Securities, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check Law). The investigating fiscal found probable cause and filed informations in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Accused Raul Leveriza, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, leading to a reinvestigation. The investigating fiscal recommended dismissal, opining that the checks were issued as guarantees and thus not covered by BP Blg. 22. The fiscal also recommended dismissal against co-accused Henry Unson, Jr. Petitioner Hoey opposed the motion to dismiss, alleging that Leveriza, Jr. had diverted corporate funds and that he and Unson, Jr. issued two checks to Hoey which bounced due to a "closed account." The checks were for P59,508.00 and P82,634.20. Procedural History: After the informations were filed, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the investigating fiscal recommended be granted. The fiscal's recommendation was based on the finding that the checks were guarantee checks and not covered by BP Blg. 22. The Petition: Before the lower court could act on the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner Hoey filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with prohibition, seeking to compel the Provincial Fiscal to prosecute the cases and to desist from pursuing the Motions to Dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Fiscal can be compelled by mandamus to prosecute criminal cases and desist from filing motions to dismiss after informations have already been filed in court. Whether checks issued as guarantees are punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court ruled that once an information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction, and the fiscal loses control over the case. The court is then mandated to dispose of the case on its merits or resolve all pending motions, including motions to dismiss.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the fiscal's control over cases after filing of information: The Court reiterated the principle that "all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal." However, it clarified that once informations have already been filed in court, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the cases. This jurisdiction, once vested, continues until the termination of the case. Therefore, the prosecuting fiscal has no more control over said cases, as they have been transferred to the court. The court, in turn, should dispose of them, one way or the other, resolving all motions brought before it, including motions to dismiss, or deciding the cases on the merits. The Court cited Alberto vs. de la Cruz, 98 SCRA 406, which states that while a fiscal's discretion to file a criminal charge is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, it would be embarrassing to compel a fiscal to prosecute when he believes he lacks sufficient evidence or conviction in the case. The proper procedure in such instances is to appeal the fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice or ask for a special prosecutor. However, this principle applies before the filing of the information. Once filed, the court takes control. On the issue of checks issued for guarantee under BP Blg. 22: The Court did not directly rule on this substantive issue in its resolution of the petition. The petition was denied on procedural grounds related to the jurisdiction of the court and the control of the fiscal. The Court stated that the trial court, having acquired jurisdiction, should dispose of the case on its merits, which would include resolving the pending motions to dismiss and determining whether the checks issued for guarantee are indeed punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court's pronouncement in the main resolution focused on the procedural aspect of who has control over the case after the filing of the information, rather than the substantive merits of whether a guarantee check falls under the purview of the law.
Main Doctrine
Once an information has been filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case, and the prosecuting fiscal no longer has control over it; the court must then dispose of the case on the merits or resolve all motions brought before it, including motions to dismiss.