JUANITO CHAN v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE et. al.

G.R. No. 147065, 14 March 2008, Third Division, (Nachura, J.)

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor’s finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

An Information for illegal selling of prohibited drugs was filed against Petitioner Juanito Chan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Chan, on the other hand, filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice. The petition was dismissed on the ground that there is no reversible error on the findings of the State Prosecutor. A Petition for Certiorari was thereafter filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellate court dismissed the petition in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Crespo v. Mogul which provides that once a case or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the discretion of the court. It further ruled that a Petition for Certiorari cannot be availed for Chan has other existing remedies such as a Motion to Quash or Dismiss.

A Petition for Certiorari was then filed with the Supreme Court. Chan contends that the case of Crespo has already been superseded by Allado v. Diokno. He further contends that a Petition for Certiorari was his speedy and most adequate remedy.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine laid down in Crespo v. Mogul
2. Whether or not a Petition for Certiorari can be availed despite the existence of other remedies

HELD:

Petition DISMISSED.

The case of Crespo still subsists

Contrary to petitioner’s view, Crespo subsists and was not superseded by Allado.

Allado, which was punctuated by inordinate eagerness in the gathering of evidence and in the preliminary investigation, serves as an exception and may not be invoked unless similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. No such circumstances were established in the present case.

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor’s finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

Albeit the findings of the Justice Secretary are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, the Court generally adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, particularly when the said findings are well-supported by the facts as established by the evidence on record. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer’s finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor. Simply stated, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion.

In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA primarily anchored its decision on Crespo, ratiocinating that it is without authority to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the case since the latter had already assumed jurisdiction.

A Petition for Certiorari may still be availed of even if there is available remedy

The CA, likewise, opined that the filing of the petition for certiorari was improper since petitioner still had an available remedy, that is, to file a motion to dismiss or to quash the Information with the trial court. We do not agree. A petition for certiorari may still be availed of even if there is an available remedy, when such remedy does not appear to be plain, speedy, and adequate in the ordinary course of law.