Crespo vs.

Mogul
Facts:
Assistant Fiscal de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against
Crespo. Thereafter, when the case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion for defer
arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice.
However, Judge Mogul denied the motion, but the arraignment was deferred in a much later date to afford
time for the petitioner to elevate the mater to the appellate court.
The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction
to the CA. The CA ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the arraignment until further
orders of the Court. Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Macaraig Jr., resolved the petition for review ,
reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the Fiscal to move for immediate
dismissal of the information filed against the accused.
Judge Mogul denied the motion for dismissal of the case and set the arraignment.
Issue: Whether the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to dismiss filed by the Fiscal under orders
from the Secretary of Justice and insists on arraignment and trial on the merits.
Held: YES.
It is a cardinal principle that a criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal
action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or
information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the
evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the
fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It cannot be
controlled by the complainant.
However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without any limitation or control. The same is
subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the case maybe and it
maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the
action or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss
the rase be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be filed in Court
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby
acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When
after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by
the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly
arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal
or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and
discretion of the trial court.

Placer vs Villanueva
The City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistants filed in the Court a number of informations which were
certified to by the investigating fiscals stating "that a preliminary examination has been conducted by me
in this case, having examined 'the complainant and his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn
statements, and other evidence submitted before this Official there is reasonable ground to believe that the
crime charged has been committed and that herein accused is probably guilty thereof.
Following receipt of said informations, respondent judge issued an order setting on April 5, 1982 the
hearing of said criminal cases for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding
warrants of arrest. After said hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders requiring petitioners to
submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support
of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable
cause by petitioners.
Petitioners filed two separate motions for reconsideration of said orders, contending that under P.D. Nos.
77 and 911, they are authorized to determine the existence of a probable cause in a preliminary
examination/investigation, and that their findings as to the existence thereof constitute sufficient basis for
the issuance of warrants of arrest by the court. Respondent judge denied said motions and reiterated his
order to petitioners to submit the supporting affidavits and other documents within five days from notice.
Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the aforesaid orders and to compel
respondent to issue the warrants of arrest.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest,
compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation.
Held: YES.
There is no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. However, the issuance of a warrant is not a
mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing
magistrate.
This is clear from the following provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:
Warrant of arrest, when issued. If the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination
conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed
and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must issue a
warrant or order for his arrest.
Under this section, the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing , a
warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscals certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause.
The obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is
to enable the court to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.

Conde vs Judge of First Instance of Tayabas

Aurelia Conde is charged in an information with the misdemeanor denominated lesiones leves. When the
accused appears before the justice of the peace on the day set for the trial, the fiscal changes the
information so as to charge the accused with the crime of attempted murder. The new crime not being
within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the case is set for preliminary hearing. But at the date
named, the fiscal does not appear, and the complaint is dismissed. The municipal council of Lucena,
Tayabas, suspends the accused from her humble position. Two days after the complaint has been
dismissed, the fiscal again becomes active and charges the accused a new with the crime of attempted
murder. The case was filed in the Court of First Instance and the case was set for trial within 6 months.
The date for trial came and the accused with her lawyer and witnesses came but the fiscal moved for its
postponement twice. The prosecutor then comes into court and informs the presiding judge that he has no
evidence to sustain the charge of attempted murder, and, therefore, under his power to amend the
information, charges the defendant with the new crimes of illegal detention and lesiones graves.
When the revised charge is presented, the counsel for the accused asks for a preliminary investigation,
which is denied. Thereupon the accused is arraigned and ordered to plead to the information. But she
remains silent, and notwithstanding the directions of the trial judge, refuses either to plead guilty or not
guilty. The trial proceeds no further, because at this moment counsel gives notice of his desire to elevate
the proceedings to the Supreme Court.
Issue: WON the amendments to the information were validly done
Held: YES.
Section 9 of the Code provides that the information or complaint may be amended in substance or form
without leave of court at any time before the defendant pleads. This section, as the Attorney-General
properly argues, lodges a discretionary power in the prosecuting officer. Ordinarily, the presentation of
one information or complaint would be sufficient, or at the most one amended information or complaint is
all that should be expected. Otherwise, if, as in this case, the provincial fiscal can constantly shift his
attack, the accused would become the victim of official vacillation and procrastination