B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]

Velasquez v Undersecretary of Justice

Velasquez v Undersecretary of Justice.

I. Recit-ready summary Undersecretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, ordering a

Felix A. Velasquez, as Executive Vice-President/Managing Director of reinvestigation of I.S. No. 86-28751.
Techtrade, filed a complaint for estafa against Avila in the Manila City Respondent Edgardo Avila was a Cash and Business Development
Fiscal's Office. Assistant Fiscal Romulo Lopez dismissed the complaint. Consultant of the Techtrade Management International Corporation,
However, upon review by the Chief, Investigation Division of the City authorized to follow-up business transactions, including loan
Fiscal's Office, the latter set aside Fiscal Lopez' resolution and ordered the applications submitted to the company.
filing of an information for estafa against Avila in the RTC. Avila informed the company that he had a borrower (whom he did
not identify) for P200,000 with interest of 3%/month for a 30-day term from
Before arraignment, Avila filed in the DOJ a petition for review which
September 29 to October 29, 1988. This was approved by the company which
Velasquez opposed. On February 15, 1988, Justice Undersecretary
Silvestre Bello III denied the petition for review. A motion for issued to him a pay-to-cash check for P194,000 after deducting the 3%
reconsideration of the denial did not prosper. interest of P6,000. Instead of returning the borrowed amount on due date or
giving a satisfactory explanation for the supposed borrower's failure to pay
On October 14, 1988, Avila filed a second motion for reconsideration the loan despite written demands, Avila resigned from the company on
which the Undersecretary of Justice, Honorable Artemio Tuquero granted December 17, 1986 promising that: "x x x I shall set aside the P200,000 upon
on January 4, 1989. He directed the City Fiscal to conduct a reinvestigation its subsequent collection (subject of Atty. Caacbay's letter of 12/10/86) to
of this case to afford respondent to properly present evidence that he was answer for the P100,000 portion of Tony's P700,000 loan to you; please treat
duly authorized to pay the subject creditors and for complainant to rebut the P100,000 balance, less my unpaid professional fee and gas expenses from
the same with controverting evidence, and thereafter to resolve the case November 16 to December 15, 1986, as my separation and compulsory
anew on the basis of all the evidence adduced. benefit"
petitioner Felix A. Velasquez, as Executive Vice-
The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of that resolution but it
President/Managing Director of Techtrade, filed a complaint for estafa
was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue: WON the Undersecretary of Justice has the authority in ordering the against Avila in the Manila City Fiscal's Office, where it was docketed as I.
re-investigation of the criminal case – NO S. No. 86-28751. Assistant Fiscal Romulo Lopez dismissed the complaint.
DOCTRINE: No, the Undersecretary of Justice gravely abused his power However, upon review by the Chief, Investigation Division of the City
in ordering the same. In the case of Crespo vs. Mogul, where the SC ruled Fiscal's Office, the latter set aside Fiscal Lopez' resolution and ordered the
that once the information is filed in court, the court acquires complete filing of an information for estafa against Avila in the Regional Trial Court.
jurisdiction over it. A motion for reinvestigation should, after the court had
acquired jurisdiction over the case, be addressed to the trial judge and to AVILA FILED RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION BUT
him alone. Neither the Secretary of Justice, the State Prosecutor, nor the DEINIED BY FISCAL.
Fiscal may interfere with the judge's disposition of the case, much less Before arraignment, Avila filed on June 29, 1987 in the Department
impose upon the court their opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the of Justice a petition for review. Petiotner opposed. On February 15, 1988,
accused, for the court is the sole judge of that Justice Undersecretary Silvestre Bello III denied the petition for review. A
motion for reconsideration (Annex M) of the denial did not prosper.
II. Facts of the case
n October 14, 1988, Avila filed a second motion for reconsideration
which the Undersecretary of Justice, Honorable Artemio Tuquero, granted
Petition for certiorari to annul and/or set aside the
on January 4, 1989 (Annex A, Petition). He directed the City Fiscal:
resolution/letter dated January 4, 1989 of the public respondent,

G.R. NO: 88442 PONENTE: Gringo- Aquino

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: Romeo
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]
Velasquez v Undersecretary of Justice
Velasquez v Undersecretary of Justice.

"x x x to conduct a re-investigation of this case to afford respondent to from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has
properly present evidence that he was duly authorized to pay the subject already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the
creditors and for complainant to rebut the same with controverting evidence, determination of the Court.
and thereafter to resolve the case anew on the basis of all the evidence The Undersecretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in
adduced." ordering the re-investigation of the criminal case against Avila after it
had been filed in court. The avowed purpose of the reinvestigation "to
give an opportunity to the private respondent to present an authentic
copy of the board resolution of the offended party (Techtrade
Issue/s
Management International Corporation) which [allegedly] had
WON the Undersecretary of Justice has the authority in ordering the
authorized him to deal and otherwise dispose of the funds of the
re-investigation of the criminal case.– NO
corporation" (p. 72, Rollo), can also be achieved at the trial in the lower
court where that piece of evidence may be presented by the accused as
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
part of his defense.
this case is governed by our decision in Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA
IV. Disposition
462, where we ruled that once the information is filed in court, the court
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The order
acquires complete jurisdiction over it. A motion for reinvestigation
dated January 4, 1989 of the public respondent (Annex A,
should, after the court had acquired jurisdiction over the case, be
Petition) is hereby annulled and set aside, with costs against the
addressed to the trial judge and to him alone. Neither the Secretary of
petitioner.
Justice, the State Prosecutor, nor the Fiscal may interfere with the
SO ORDERED.
judge's disposition of the case, much less impose upon the court their
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ.,
opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, for the court is
concur.
the sole judge of that.
once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of
V. Notes
the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused
rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the
case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court.
The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before
it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It
does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the
accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the
investigation.
"In order therefor[e] to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of
the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal

G.R. NO: 88442 PONENTE: Gringo- Aquino

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: Romeo