Ark Travel Express v Abrogar

G.R. No. 137010

August 29, 2003

Ark Express filed a complaint accusing Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira of falsely testifying (Article 182,
RPC) in a civil case pending before another court. City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict private
respondents for violation of said law and filed informations.

Private respondents Baguio and Ira filed a petition for review of the City Prosecutor’s resolution
resulting to the DOJ Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo reversing the abovementioned resolution. A
motion to withdraw information was filed by the prosecution following the order. However, upon yet
another motion for review by private respondents, Sec. Bello of DOJ found probable cause and directed
the prosecution to maintain the case and rescind the motion to withdraw information

Based on the Bello resolution, The MTC judge decided to deny motion and proceed with the criminal
case. Private respondents opposed the MTC resolution on the motion, arguing that the finding of
probable cause by Sec. Bello of DOJ was made beyond the reglementary period and that the initial
resolution by Jovencito Zuo, ordering the withdrawal of information, was final and executory. MTC
denied and cited the case of Crespo v Mogul, which states that upon filing of information in the court,
the decision of the MTC to proceed with the case rests on the prerogative of the judge.

Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the RTC, arguing that the MTC should have made its
own study and evaluation of the motion to withdraw information on ground of lack of probable cause
and it should not have decided merely on basis of the DOJ’s will. The RTC granted the motion and
ordered that the information be withdrawn. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Did RTC act with grave abuse when it nullified the orders of the MTC to proceed with the criminal case,
and when it ordered the withdrawal of the information?

Held:

No. Yes.

The RTC was correct in ruling that the MTC misapplied the doctrine in Crespo v Mogul. Upon filing of the
information in court, its disposition rests solely on its discretion and prerogative, and need not agree to
the resolution made by the prosecution to withdraw the information. But, judges are required to make
“independent assessments of the merits” of such motion. In the case at bar, the MTC decided to
proceed with the case merely on basis of the resolution made by the DOJ Secretary. Such was done with
grave abuse of discretion.

However, the RTC also acted with grave abuse when it ordered the withdrawal of the information. The
RTC cannot cause the dismissal of the case. It was made to decide only to the extent of whether or not
the MTC correctly applied to doctrine in Crespo v Mogul. It did not have the authority to decide to
withdraw the case, because such may only be made upon independent assessment of the MTC judge.
However, for purposes of speedy resolution, the SC decides to remand the case to the trial court, and
rules that the criminal proceedings be suspended while the civil case of Ark and private respondents are
being tried. The criminal of false testimony cannot be adjudicated while the civil case is still pending.