G.R. No. 171643 Case Digest

G.R. No. 171643, August 8, 2010

Filemon Verzano,Jr., petitioner

vs Francis Paro, et.al., respondents

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

On March 2002, Verzano former district manager of Wyeth Philippines, Inc. for the islands of Panay and Negros was dismissed from service upon administrative complaint filed against him. 

The complaint was founded on petitioner's alleged violation of company policy on prohibited sale of drug samples given for free to doctors and for the unauthorized act of transferring of the stocks within the same area falsely creating an impression that there was a sale. After conducting its own investigation and giving petitioner an opportunity to explain his side, wyeth resolved to dismiss petitioner tendering him a Notice of Termination.

Aggrieved, Verzano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with Regional Labor Arbitration Board, NLRC, Bacolod City against Wyeth. Attached were the affidavits of respondents Paro and Florencio alleging that the respondents' testimony are false and incriminatory machination. The affidavits of the respondents contained falsehood particularly on the material date of the alleged sale of products which are to be given free to doctors.

Subpoenas were issued by the City Prosecutor against respondents for the submission of their respective counter-affidavits; however, the return of the subpoenas showed that respondents could not be located at their given addresses.In a resolution, the city prosecutors resolved to dismiss Verzano's complaint finding no probable cause and insufficiency of evidence.

Verzano filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the city prosecutor in a resolution. Verzano appealed the resolution oof the city prosecutor to the office of regional state prosecutor via petition for review, but regional state prosecutor finding merit in Verzano's petition reversed and directed the prosecutor's office to file information for perjury against Paro, Florencio.

Aggrieved, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Regional State Prosecutor.

On September 2004 respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the resolutions of the regional state prosecutor which reversed the earlier resolution of the city prosecutor and prayed for a TRO from CA.

On October 2004, MTC issued warrants of arrest against respondents, Florencio posted bail and Paro followed suit on Ocotber 8, 2004.

On October 14, 2004 a TRO was issued by CA enjoining the public respondent chief prosecutor from acting on the assailed order issued by the regional state prosecutor for a period of 60 days from receipt. In light of the TRO, respondents filed with MTCC a manifestation and urgent motion to suspend proceedings which was granted by the MTCC.

On July 28, 2005 CA ruled in favor of the respondents, granting the petition of the respondents. That the regional state prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion when he directed the filing of the information for perjury on the reason of no counter-affidavits were submitted by respondents. Verzano petitioned for a motion for reconsideration but was denied by CA.

Issues: (1) petition filed by respondents with CA had been rendered moot and academic by the filing of the cases in court. (2) regional state prosecutor did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the resolution of the city prosecutor. (3) petition for certiorari filed by herein private respondents with the CA is not the proper remedy.

Ruling: Petition has no merit.

(1) The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. (2) The justice secretary's power of review may still be availed of despite the filing of an information in court. The case record will show that your Office, in the determination of probable cause vis-à-vis the attending set of facts and circumstances, failed to consider the application of the procedure laid down under Section 3 paragraph (d) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Procedure which provides:

If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10)-day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.In the instant case, the Investigating Prosecutor found ground to continue with the inquiry which is why he issued subpoenas to the respondents to submit their counter affidavit within the 10-day period, since he could have dismissed it initially if indeed there was really no evidence to serve as a ground for continuing with the inquiry. For failure of the respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits, they are deemed to have forfeited their right to preliminary investigation as due process only requires that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavit, if he is so minded. The conclusion reached by the Regional State Prosecutor is manifestly wrong as the CA was correct when it observed that the issuance of a subpoena would become unceremoniously clothed with the untoward implication that probable cause is necessarily extant.(3) CA found that the Regional State Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion when he ordered the City Prosecutor to file the Informations for perjury against respondents. It was because of the CA Decision that the City Prosecutor eventually filed two Motions for Leave to Withdraw Informations. The court may deny or grant a motion to withdraw an information, not out of subservience to the (Special) Prosecutor, but in faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative. The dismissal of the two informations against respondents were subject to the MTCC’s jurisdiction and discretion in view of the circumstances of the case at bar. Such dismissal ultimately renders the case moot and academic.