Scribd
Upload
39 views2 pages

Crespo vs. Mogul: Estafa Case Ruling

Mario Crespo was accused of estafa in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When his case was set for arraignment, Crespo filed a motion to defer arraignment pending a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, but the motion was denied by Judge Mogul. Crespo then filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals to stop the arraignment, which the Court of Appeals granted. However, Judge Mogul denied the motion to dismiss the case and set a new arraignment date. The key issues were whether the trial court could refuse to dismiss a case when ordered by the Secretary of Justice, and whether it could

Uploaded by

Ron Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views2 pages

Crespo vs. Mogul: Estafa Case Ruling

Mario Crespo was accused of estafa in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When his case was set for arraignment, Crespo filed a motion to defer arraignment pending a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, but the motion was denied by Judge Mogul. Crespo then filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals to stop the arraignment, which the Court of Appeals granted. However, Judge Mogul denied the motion to dismiss the case and set a new arraignment date. The key issues were whether the trial court could refuse to dismiss a case when ordered by the Secretary of Justice, and whether it could

Uploaded by

Ron Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Digest: Crespo vs.

Mogul
MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF
LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner Mario Crespo was accused for Estafa in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City.
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,
Justice Mogul denied the motion, but the arraignment was deferred in a much later date to afford
time for the petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court. 
The accused filed a petition for writ of certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary
writ of injunction to the Court of Appeals. In an order of August 17, 1977, the Court of Appeals
restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders
of the Court. The Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the
arraignment until further orders of the Court.
Judge Mogul denied the motion for dismissal of the case ad set the arraignment. The accused
then filed a petition for Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of
preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals dismissed the order and lifted the restraining order.
Issues:
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.
Resolution:
A motion to dismiss this case is filed by the procuring fiscal on insufficiency of evidence. The
fiscal is urged to move for dismissal for the reason that the case can only be civil and not a
criminal.

The fiscal shall prosecute all criminal actions that has begun by complaint or by information
under his direction and control. It depends on his decision the institution of a criminal action.
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. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed
in Court any nature of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests
in the sound discretion of the 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. The
preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima
facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the
information in the proper court.
The motion's thrust being to induce this Court to resolve the innocence of the accused on
evidence not before it but on that adduced before the Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that not
only disregards the requirements of due process but also erodes the Court's independence and
integrity, the motion is considered as without merit and therefore hereby DENIED.

You might also like