GR 164669; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 164669-70; October 30, 2009
LIEZL CO, Petitioner, vs. HAROLD LIM y GO and AVELINO UY GO, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Liezl Co reported that cell cards stolen from her were being sold at A-K Video Store. On December 6, 2001, NBI agents raided the store, owned by respondent Avelino Uy Go, and arrested respondent Harold Lim, who was administering it. Thirty boxes of cell cards worth ₱332,605.00 were seized. The City Prosecutor of Manila found probable cause and filed Informations for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) against Lim and later against Go. The cases were consolidated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Respondents filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). On January 16, 2004, the Acting Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutor’s finding and directed the withdrawal of the Informations. The public prosecutor consequently filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations. The private prosecutor opposed, arguing the DOJ resolution was not binding on the court. Nevertheless, the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the cases in an Order dated February 11, 2004, reasoning that the prosecution would not pursue the cases.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal cases based solely on the DOJ Secretary’s resolution directing the withdrawal of the Informations.
RULING
Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The court’s duty to independently assess the merits of a motion to dismiss an information is fundamental. While the prosecution retains the authority to control the criminal prosecution, including the right to move for dismissal, the court is not a mere rubber stamp. The trial judge must evaluate the motion’s merits and ensure the dismissal will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused or the offended party.
In this case, the RTC abdicated this judicial responsibility. Its order of dismissal was based primarily, if not exclusively, on the prosecutor’s motion, which was filed in mere compliance with the DOJ directive. The court failed to make an independent finding that the withdrawal of the information was justified. It did not examine whether the DOJ resolution was based on a clear error or whether the evidence of record still supported a finding of probable cause. By dismissing the cases based on the perceived “awkward situation” of the public prosecutor, the RTC effectively surrendered its judicial discretion to the executive branch. This constitutes a capricious and whimsical exercise of power, amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.