Sta. Rosa Mining Company v. Zabala
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sta. Rosa Mining Company filed a complaint for attempted theft of scrap iron against private respondents Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan. The Provincial Fiscal's Office found a prima facie case and recommended the filing of an information, which was approved. Private respondents sought reconsideration, which was denied. Procedural History: An Information for Attempted Theft was filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Norte. Private respondents requested a review from the Secretary of Justice, who ordered the Provincial Fiscal to defer proceedings. The Secretary of Justice later reversed the fiscal's finding and directed the dismissal of the case. Petitioner opposed this. The CFI denied the fiscal's motion to dismiss, finding a prima facie case and setting the case for trial. Private respondents' motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a Second Motion to Dismiss, which was again denied by the CFI. The fiscal then manifested that he would not prosecute the case and disauthorized private prosecutors. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent fiscal to prosecute Criminal Case No. 821 until its termination.
Issue(s)
Whether a fiscal can be compelled to prosecute a criminal case after his motion to dismiss has been denied by the trial court. Whether the Secretary of Justice's directive to dismiss a case, after it has been filed in court and the motion to dismiss is denied, can justify a fiscal's refusal to prosecute.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Public respondent fiscal, or any person acting in his stead, is ordered to continue prosecuting Criminal Case No. 821 until its termination.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of compelling prosecution after denial of motion to dismiss: The Court held that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the fiscal is not clothed with the power to dismiss or nolle prosequi the action without the consent of the court. The power to dismiss criminal actions is vested solely in the court. While the institution of a criminal action is generally addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating fiscal, this discretion is circumscribed once the case is filed in court. The court has full control of the case. Therefore, if the fiscal's motion to dismiss is denied, he is obliged to proceed with the prosecution of the case. The Court emphasized that the fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility and must present evidence to enable the court to arrive at its own independent judgment. The criminal action shall be prosecuted under the fiscal's direction and control. On the effect of the Secretary of Justice's directive: The Court clarified that the Secretary of Justice's directive to move for dismissal, and the subsequent denial of that motion by the trial court, does not justify the fiscal's refusal to prosecute. The control of the case rests with the court where it is filed, not the fiscal. The Court reiterated its ruling in Crespo v. Mogul, stating that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, including dismissal, rests in the sound discretion of the Court. The fiscal retains direction and control, but cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The trial court is the sole judge of what to do with the case before it. Therefore, the fiscal's refusal to prosecute, despite the denial of his motion to dismiss, was improper.
Main Doctrine
Once a criminal case has been filed in court, the fiscal cannot unilaterally dismiss the case; the power to dismiss rests solely with the court. If the fiscal's motion to dismiss is denied, he is bound to prosecute the case.