Ledesma v CA J. Panganiban Sept 5, 1997 FACTS: - A Complaint for Libel was filed against Dr. Ledesma before the QC prosecutor - An Information on libel was filed against Rhodora Ledesma before the RTC Quezon City Branch 104, which read: “That on or about the 27th day of June 1991, in Quezon City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, acting with malice, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously send a letter addressed to Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Director of Philippine Heart Center, East Avenue, this city, and furnished the same to other officers of the said hospital, said letter containing slanderous and defamatory remarks against DR. JUAN F. TORRES, JR., which states in part and other words of similar import, when i n truth and in fact, as the accused very well knew, the same are entirely false and untrue but were publicly made for no other purpose than to expose said DR. JUAN F. TORRES, JR. to public ridicule, thereby casting dishonor, discredit and contempt upon the person of the said offended party, to his damage and prejudice.”
-
-
-
A petition for review of the resolution of Assistant City Prosecutor Vestil was filed by petitioner before the Department of Justice pursuant to P.D. No. 77 as amended by P.D. No. 911. Department of Justice granted the petition and directed the prosecutor to move for the deferment of the arraignment (Trial Court granted) Private complainant filed a Motion to lift Order, and to Set the Case for Arraignment/Trial Arraignment/Trial (Granted) Justice Secretary Drilon directed the Quezon City Prosecutor to withdraw the Informations
-
QC Prosecutors filed a Motion to Withdraw Information (Denied) Petitioner filed filed an MR (Denied) Hence this petition
ISSUE and RULING WON Respondent Court commit any reversible error in affirming the trial courts denial of the prosecutions Motion to Withdraw Information? YES. Determination of Probable Cause for preliminary investigation is an executive function, and therefore, the order of the Justice Secretary to withdraw the information was an exercise of executive power. Two kinds of determination determination of P.C. 1. determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information: Prosecutor (Executive function) 2. an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest: Judge (judicial function) Crespo v Mogul: It is a cardinal principle that all 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… It is not prudent or even permissible for a Court to compel the fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him on an information, if he finds that the evidence relied upon by him is insufficient for conviction. Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct control and supervision over
said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Marcelo vs. CA: Crespo did not foreclose the power or authority of the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases. The Court recognized in Crespo that the action of the investigating fiscal or prosecutor in the preliminary investigation is subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor. Thereafter, it may be appealed to the secretary of justice. Martinez v CA: the Court overruled the grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal upon the recommendation of the secretary of justice because such grant was based upon considerations other than the judges own assessment of the matter. Furthermore, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Justice Secretary in ordering the withdrawal of the Information, since there was no probable cause as the subject matter was privileged and that the complaint was merely a countercharge.
