Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →
Petitioner
Crespo
Respondent
Mogul
Citation
G.R. No. L-53373
Court
Supreme Court
Division
En Banc
Ponente
Gancayco, J.
Decided
June 30, 1987

Summary

This landmark case establishes the principle that once a criminal information is filed in court, the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether to grant or deny motions to dismiss, even when filed upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice after review. Mario Crespo was charged with estafa, but after review, the DOJ directed dismissal. When the trial court refused to dismiss, citing judicial independence, Crespo challenged this through multiple appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that while prosecutors retain control over criminal cases, they cannot impose their opinions on trial courts. The court has discretionary authority over case disposition once jurisdiction is acquired. However, prosecutors must continue appearing for the People even when disagreeing with the court's decision, ensuring proper representation while maintaining the separation of prosecutorial and judicial functions.

Intellegal Wiki · Key Holding

Dismissed the petition: once a criminal information is filed, any disposition including dismissal rests in the court's sound discretion; the fiscal cannot impose his opinion and must continue to appear for the prosecution.

An editorially maintained summary of the rule this Supreme Court decision is cited for — not legal advice.

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · June 30, 1987

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →
AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.