Role Definition Duties and Responsibilities

- Evaluate evidence and decide

A government whether to file charges.
lawyer who
Fiscal prosecutes criminal - Present cases in court.
cases on behalf of
the state. - Ensure justice is served, not just
secure convictions.
- Interpret and apply the law.
An official who
presides over court - Make rulings on motions and
Judge proceedings, evidence.
ensuring the law is
followed. - Decide cases based on facts and
law, including sentencing.

- Initiate and conduct criminal

A lawyer who prosecutions.
represents the
Prosecut
state in criminal - Negotiate plea deals.
or
cases (can also
refer to a fiscal). - Ensure fair legal proceedings and
uphold victims’ rights.
- Provide legal advice.
A general term for
a lawyer who - Represent clients in various legal
Attorney advises and matters (civil and criminal).
represents clients
in legal matters. - Draft legal documents and negotiate
on behalf of clients.

A high-ranking - Oversee the justice system and

government official legal affairs.
overseeing the
Secretary - Review and direct prosecutorial
DEPARTMENT OF
of Justice actions.
JUSTICE, often at
the national level. - Provide legal opinions and advice to
DOJ the government.

GR NO L-53373 CRESPO VS MOGUL

KEYWORDS: ESTAFA, DOJ SECRETARY, JURISDICTION/ AUTHORITY
- **Issue**: Whether or not a trial court can refuse a motion to dismiss a
criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon direction from the
Secretary of Justice.
FACTS
 On April 18, 1977, Assistant Fiscal filed an estafa information
against Mario Fl. Crespo, leading to Criminal Case No. CCCIX-52
(Quezon) '77.
 Accused filed to defer arraignment due to a pending review with
the Secretary of Justice; motion was denied but arraignment was
postponed.
 The Court of Appeals issued a restraining order against the
arraignment on August 17, 1977, pending resolution of the
Secretary's review.
 On March 22, 1978, the Secretary of Justice directed the Provincial
Fiscal to dismiss the information due to insufficient evidence.
 Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 1978, citing
lack of evidence, but the trial court denied the motion on
November 24, 1978.
 The accused filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus in the Court of Appeals; these were eventually
dismissed.
 The trial court maintains the discretion to grant or deny motions
to dismiss, even when recommended by the Secretary of Justice.
 The fiscal has the authority to determine whether to prosecute
based on evidence; once a case is filed in court, the court has the
final authority.
The fiscal must continue to represent the prosecution even if the
Secretary disagrees with proceeding; abandoning the case could
invalidate the proceedings.

- **Final Decision**: The petition (CRESPO) was dismissed for lack of

merit, affirming the trial court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine case
outcomes, irrespective of the fiscal’s or Secretary’s opinions.

DISCUSION ON FILING OF INFORMATION

The ruling emphasizes that:

Judicial Independence: The trial court has the exclusive authority to determine the
outcome of a criminal case once an information is filed. It can grant or deny motions to
dismiss, regardless of the fiscal's recommendations or directives from the Secretary of
Justice.
Prosecutorial Duty: The fiscal must continue to represent the prosecution's interests
and present evidence, even if they believe the case should be dismissed. The fiscal
cannot abandon the prosecution, as this could invalidate the proceedings.
Discretion of the Court: The court must independently assess the evidence presented
and cannot be bound by the fiscal's opinion or the Secretary's directives. The court's
decision-making must remain free from outside influence.
Guidance for the Secretary of Justice: The Secretary should avoid intervening in cases
already filed in court to prevent potential conflicts with the court's authority.
Overall, the ruling affirms the trial court's discretion and the importance of both
judicial independence and the prosecutorial role in the pursuit of justice

Important Notes:
- The role of the fiscal or prosecutor is to ensure that justice is served, not solely to
secure convictions.
- The fiscal must present evidence in court to allow the court to make an independent
judgment on the accused’s guilt or innocence.
- The fiscal should not avoid the responsibility of prosecuting on behalf of the People of
the Philippines.
- Abandoning the case to a private prosecutor could render the proceedings null and
void.
- The fiscal may allow a private prosecutor to present evidence but must retain overall
direction and control.
-Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the court has the discretion to
dismiss the case or render a conviction or acquittal.
- The fiscal retains control over the prosecution but cannot impose their opinions on
the trial court.
- The court is the sole judge of how to proceed with the case, exercising exclusive
jurisdiction and competence.
- A motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal must be addressed to the court, which can grant
or deny it regardless of timing (before or after arraignment, or following a
reinvestigation).
- To prevent conflicts, the Secretary of Justice should refrain from reviewing actions of
the fiscal once a complaint is filed in court.
- Such matters should be left entirely to the court's determination.
- The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs imposed.

In the case of Crespo vs. Mogul (GR NO L-53373), the main issue revolves around the
authority and discretion of the trial court in relation to the Secretary of Justice's
directive to dismiss a criminal case.

Key Points of the Issue:

Authority of the Secretary of Justice: The Secretary directed the Provincial Fiscal to
dismiss the estafa case against Mario Fl. Crespo due to insufficient evidence. This raised
the question of whether the trial court was obligated to follow this directive.

Trial Court's Discretion: The trial court denied the motion to dismiss filed by the
Provincial Fiscal, asserting that it retains the discretion to determine whether to grant
or deny such motions. The court's authority is independent, even in light of the
Secretary of Justice's recommendations.

Role of the Provincial Fiscal: The Provincial Fiscal has the responsibility to assess
evidence and decide whether to proceed with prosecution. However, once a case is
filed in court, the court takes over the authority to rule on its progress, meaning the
Fiscal cannot simply abandon the case based on the Secretary's directive.

Final Ruling: The Court of Appeals dismissed Crespo's petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus, affirming that the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction over
the case proceedings. This indicates that while the Secretary of Justice can recommend
dismissal, the trial court is not mandated to comply.

Violations and Legal Implications:

Violations: The main issue here is about the power of the trial court. The Secretary of
Justice told the Provincial Fiscal to drop the case, but that doesn't take away the trial
court's authority to decide what happens in the case.

Legal Implications: Because the trial court has the final say, it was completely within its
rights to reject the request to dismiss the case. This means that even if the Secretary
suggested dropping the case, the court could choose to keep it going.

Aspect Complaint Information

 A formal accusation that a
A formal charge filed by a
crime has been committed,
prosecutor stating that a
Definition usually initiated by a
person has committed a
private party or law
crime, based on evidence.
enforcement.

Typically initiated by a Initiated by the fiscal

Initiation private individual or law (prosecutor) after
enforcement officer. evaluating evidence.

Contains specific charges

Contains allegations of the
and a detailed statement
offense and relevant facts
Content of facts, showing that there
but may not require
is sufficient evidence for
detailed evidence.
prosecution.

Filed with the court to Filed directly with the court

Filing begin preliminary after a preliminary
Process proceedings; may lead to a investigation, leading to
preliminary investigation. arraignment and trial.

Carries legal weight as it

May result in a preliminary formally commences
Legal Status investigation to determine prosecution and
if there is probable cause. establishes jurisdiction
over the accused.

May lead to a decision by

Directly leads to criminal
the prosecutor to file an
Outcome proceedings against the
information if sufficient
accused.
evidence is found.

G.R. No. 140863 August 22, 2000

SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

petitioners,
vs.
HON. ROLANDO HOW, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court Branch 257 of Parañaque and MA. FE F. BARREIRO, respondents.

ISSUE: Whether a trial court can indefinitely suspend the arraignment of an

accused until a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) is
resolved.

Facts:

 May 28, 1999: Information for estafa filed against Ma. Fe Barreiro by
the City Prosecutor of Parañaque based on a complaint from Solar
Team Entertainment, Inc.
 Case docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-536 in Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City.
 Scheduled arraignment for August 5, 1999, was reset to September 2,
1999, due to private respondent’s appeal to the DOJ.
 Subsequent orders delayed arraignment to November 18, 1999, and
further indefinitely suspended it until the DOJ appeal was resolved.
 Petitioner argued that this delay violated the Speedy Trial Act of 1998
(RA 8493) and due process.

Legal Issues Raised:

Court erred by refusing to arraign private respondent despite the 30-day limit
imposed by Section 7 of RA 8493.
Court violated Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.

Ruling:

Petition dismissed; the court did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
Secretary of Justice has the authority to review prosecutor resolutions even
after filing in court (referenced cases: Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, Ledesma
vs. Court of Appeals). The trial court can defer arraignment while awaiting
resolution of an appeal, respecting the DOJ’s authority.
Key Points on Authority: The Secretary of Justice supervises and controls
prosecutors, which includes the power to review, modify, or reverse their
decisions. Courts should avoid hasty arraignments to prevent miscarriages of
justice.

Impact of Speedy Trial Act:

Section 7 is not absolute; exceptions exist for delays due to continuances

granted in the interest of justice (Section 10, RA 8493).
Delays while awaiting DOJ review do not necessarily violate the right to a
speedy trial.

Importance of DOJ Review:

Acknowledges the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Immediate arraignment could limit the accused's rights to appeal.
Conclusion:

Suspension of arraignment is justified to allow the accused to exhaust

administrative remedies.
The ruling affirms that the court may act to suspend arraignment while
respecting the authority of the DOJ.

Final Decision: The petition for certiorari and mandamus is dismissed for
lack of merit.

Expanded Ruling in Relation to the DOJ Secretary

Authority of the DOJ Secretary:

The DOJ Secretary possesses significant authority over the prosecutors within
the Department of Justice. This includes the power to review and modify
decisions made by subordinate prosecutors, even after an information has been
filed in court. Cited cases (e.g., Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, Roberts vs. Court
of Appeals) affirm this power, establishing that the Secretary's authority to
review resolutions is not hindered by the progression of a case in court.

Supervision and Control:

The DOJ Secretary's role is defined under the Revised Administrative Code,
which grants him supervision and control over the Office of the Chief Prosecutor
and related prosecution offices.
This supervision allows the Secretary to intervene in cases where initial
prosecutorial decisions may be challenged, ensuring that any potential mistakes
or abuses are addressed before reaching trial.

Judicial Discretion:

The ruling emphasizes that the trial court has discretion to defer arraignment
while waiting for the resolution of an appeal with the DOJ. This discretion is
grounded in the principle that courts should respect the authority of the
prosecution, especially when issues surrounding the sufficiency of grounds for
filing an information are in question.
The court’s decision to suspend the arraignment pending DOJ review reflects a
commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that
prosecutorial decisions are sound and just.
Speedy Trial Act Reconciliation:

The ruling addresses concerns about the potential conflict between the DOJ
Secretary's review authority and the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, which mandates
that an arraignment occurs within 30 days.
It clarifies that Section 7 of the Speedy Trial Act is not absolute and allows for
delays under certain circumstances, particularly when those delays serve the
interests of justice, such as allowing for a thorough review of prosecutorial
decisions.

Justification for Delay:

The court outlined that delays resulting from the need for a complete
administrative process should be viewed as justifiable. The importance of the
Secretary’s review is underscored as a mechanism to ensure fairness and
thoroughness in the prosecution process.
The necessity of allowing the accused to exhaust all available administrative
remedies before proceeding to trial is framed as a safeguard against potential
miscarriages of justice.
Role of the Public Prosecutor:

The ruling reinforces that while private complainants have a role in criminal
cases, the prosecution remains under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor, who must also consider the implications of ongoing appeals with the
DOJ. In light of the private respondent’s appeal, the public prosecutor’s
obligation to uphold procedural integrity should compel them to support the
suspension of the arraignment, ensuring that the process aligns with
established legal standards.

Conclusion on the DOJ Secretary's Role:

Ultimately, the ruling reinforces the DOJ Secretary's critical role in maintaining
the balance between expediting judicial processes and ensuring the rights of the
accused are preserved.
The suspension of arraignment, while a temporary measure, is positioned as a
necessary step to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and respect the
established legal framework governing prosecutorial review.

G.R. No. 127107 October 12, 1998

PETER PAUL DIMATULAC and VERONICA DIMATULAC, petitioners,
vs.
HON. SESINANDO VILLON in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 54;

FACTS:

PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot and killed on November 3, 1995, at his
residence in Barangay San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga. This incident
prompted an outcry from the local community and raised significant legal
concerns.

On November 5, 1995, a murder complaint was filed by SPO1 Renato Layug

against several individuals, including local officials and others. The case was
assigned as Criminal Case No. 95-360.

After conducting a preliminary examination, the court found probable cause for
murder, indicating strong circumstantial evidence of conspiracy among the
accused.

ISSUE:

whether the actions of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the presiding
judge, and the Secretary of Justice in the Dimatulac case violated Rule 110 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the proper classification and
prosecution of the crime, specifically whether it should be treated as murder
rather than homicide.

RULING: