Ebarle vs.
Sucaldito ISSUE: Whether or not Anti-Graft League has the
(Complaint)
FACTS: The private respondent Anti-Graft League of the
Philippines, Inc., filed a complaint with the respondent
City Fiscal, for violation of the provisions of the Anti-
Graft Law as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code.
That on June 16, 1970, without publication,
respondents conducted the so-called "bidding" for the
supply of gravel and sand for the province of Zamboanga
del Sur; that said respondents, without any valid or legal
ground, did not include or even open the bid of one Jesus
Teoson that was seasonably submitted, despite the fact
that he is a registered duly qualified operator of "Teoson
Trucking Service," and notwithstanding his compliance
with all the rules and requirements on public bidding;
that, instead, aforecited respondents illegally and
irregularly awarded said contract to Cesar Tabiliran, an
associate of respondent Governor Bienvenido Ebarle.
The petitioner challenge the personality of the
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines to bring suit against
the petitioner. He argued that the Anti-Graft League is
not an "offended party" within the meaning of Section 2,
Rule 110, of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
personality to file a complaint before the fiscal’s office.
HELD: YES. A complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation by the fiscal need not be filed by the
"offended party." The rule has been that, unless the
offense subject thereof is one that cannot be
prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed, for
preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent
person. The "complaint" referred to in the Rule 110
contemplates one filed in court, not with the fiscal, In
that case, the proceeding must be started by the
aggrieved party himself.
For as a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by
complaint or information, both of which are filed in
court. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by the
offended party; with respect to an information, it is the
fiscal who files it. But a "complaint" filed with the fiscal
prior to a judicial action may be filed by any person.
Bautista vs. CA subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
(Information) or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not
FACTS: Petitioner Ruth D. Bautista issued to private respondent the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Susan Aloa Metrobank Check No. 005014037 dated 8 May 1998
for P1,500,000.00 drawn on Metrobank Cavite City Branch. According to The ninety (90)-day period is not among these elements. Section 2 of BP
private respondent, petitioner assured her that the check would be 22 is clear that a dishonored check presented within the ninety (90)-day
sufficiently funded on the maturity date. period creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency
of funds, which is an essential element of the offense. Since knowledge
On 20 October 1998 private respondent presented the check for
payment. The drawee bank dishonored the check because it was drawn involves a state of mind difficult to establish, the statute itself creates
against insufficient funds (DAIF). a prima facie presumption of the existence of this element from the fact
of drawing, issuing or making a check, the payment of which was
Private respondent filed a complaint-affidavit with the City
Prosecutor of Cavite City. In addition to the details of the issuance and subsequently refused for insufficiency of funds.
the dishonor of the check, she also alleged that she made repeated
As long as the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
demands on petitioner to make arrangements for the payment of the
check within five (5) working days after receipt of notice of dishonor particularity and reasonable certainty that the accused is duly informed
from the bank, but that petitioner failed to do so. of the offense charged, then the information is considered sufficient. In
particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends
Petitioner then submitted her own counter-affidavit asserting in her
on whether the material facts alleged in the information shall establish
defense that presentment of the check within ninety (90) days from due
the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.
date thereof was an essential element of the offense of violation of BP
22. Since the check was presented for payment 166 days after its due
date, it was no longer punishable under BP 22 and therefore the
complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. She also claimed that
she already assigned private respondent her condominium unit at Antel
Seaview Condominium, Roxas Boulevard, as full payment for the
bounced checks thus extinguishing her criminal liability.

The investigating prosecutor issued a resolution recommending

the filing of an Information against petitioner for violation of BP 22,
which was approved by the City Prosecutor.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s contention is correct.

HELD: No. The elements of the offense under BP 22 are (a) the making,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b)
the maker, drawer or issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon its presentment; and, (c) the check is
Suarez vs. Platon interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
(Function, Power, & Discretion of a Public Prosecutor) shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he
is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the
FACTS: In May 1935, Atty. Fortunato Suarez was riding a law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not
train on his way to Calauag, Tayabas. Apparently he was escape or innocence shall suffer.
very vocal and he was despising the abuses made by
government officers. Incidentally, Lieutenant Vivencio
Orais was aboard the train. Orais arrested Suarez and
charged him with sedition. Orais however later moved
for the dismissal of the case upon the instruction of his
superior. Thereafter, Suarez filed a case against Orais for
arbitrary detention. Provincial Fiscal Ramon Valdez
moved for the dismissal of the case due to insufficiency
of evidence. Suarez asked Valdez to inhibit and later
asked for a special prosecutor to take his place as he
alleged that Valdez does not have the courage to
prosecute the case. Valdez was then replaced by special
prosecutor Jacinto Yamzon who also found that there is
insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. Eventually,
the case was dismissed by Judge Servillano Platon on the
ground that there is insufficiency of evidence. Suarez
appealed the dismissal of the case but his appeal was
denied on the ground that mandamus is the proper
remedy. Hence, Suarez filed this Mandamus case to
compel Platon to reinstate the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be reinstated.
HELD: No. The fiscals are well within their rights not to
push through with the case if they find the evidence to be
insufficient. The prosecuting officer is the representative
not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose
Crespo vs. Mogul
(Function, Power, & Discretion of a Public Prosecutor)
FACTS: Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the
Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in
the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for
arraigment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground
that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of
Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of
the information. In an order of the presiding judge, His Honor, Leodegario L.
Mogul, denied the motion. A motion for reconsideration of the order was
denied but the arraignment was deferred to afford time for petitioner to
elevate the matter to the appellate court.
A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with
the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court. A decision
was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually
restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of
the accused in the case until the Department
Then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, Jr., resolving
the petition for review reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the
information filed against the accused. A motion to dismiss for insufficiency
of evidence was filed by the Provincial Fiscal.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case
filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to
whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and
insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.
HELD: Yes. It is a cardinal principle that an 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. He may or may not file the
complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the
offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is
sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. 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. Prosecuting
officers under the power vested in them by law, not only have the authority
but also the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence
received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed
within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal duty not to
prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the
evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the
fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the
prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion
and control of the criminal prosecution. 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. Neither has the Court any
power to order the fiscal to prosecute or file an information within a certain
period of time, since this would interfere with the fiscal's discretion and
control of criminal prosecutions. Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of
the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so, and Courts that
grant the same commit no error. The fiscal may re-investigate a case and
subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigation show either
that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be established
beyond reasonable doubt. In a clash of views between the judge who did
not investigate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the
offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally
prevail. On the other hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a
writ of prohibition may be issued by the courts to restrain a criminal
prosecution except in the extreme case where it is necessary for the Courts
to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the
strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner.