CRESPO VS MOGUL FACTS:

Assistant Fiscal Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo. When the case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of ustice. !he respondent denied the motion. Court of Appeals restrained the "udge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the #epartment of ustice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. !hen, $sec of ustice resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the %ffice 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 &y the Provincial Fiscal. 'owever, the udge denied the motion and set the arraignment stating. A motion and restraining order was filed again in the CA &ut was dismissed. !hus, this case.
ISSUE:

Whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed &y the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of ustice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. ($)*+G, -.S. *t is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either commenced &y complaint or &y information shall &e prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. !he institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. !he reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution &y private persons. *t cannot &e controlled &y the complainant. *t is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the fiscal determines the e/istence of a prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. !he Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal0s discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. !hus, a fiscal who as1s for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so, and Courts that grant the same commit no error. *n a clash of views &etween the "udge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or &etween the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal0s should normally prevail.

!he preliminary investigation conducted &y the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case e/ists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. !he filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should &e filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court.Whether the accused had &een arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation &y the fiscal or a review &y the Secretary of ustice where&y a motion to dismiss was su&mitted to the Court, the Court in the e/ercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and re2uire that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. !he role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all 1now is to see that "ustice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused &efore the Courts. !hus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to ena&le the Court to arrive at its own independent "udgment as to whether the accused should &e convicted or ac2uitted. !he rule therefore in this "urisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or ac2uittal 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. !he Court is the &est and sole "udge on what to do with the case &efore it. !he determination of the case is within its e/clusive "urisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed &y the fiscal should &e addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. *t does not matter if this is done &efore or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of ustice who reviewed the records of the investigation. #*SM*SS.#.

PEOPLE OF T E P !L "# $O%TE%E&'O

FAC!S, %n March 3455, the court issued a temporary restraining order en"oining respondent court from proceeding to hear and decide the case until further orders from the Court. %n 67 Septem&er 3458, the City Fiscal of 9ue:on City filed an *nformation for ;(o&erry; &efore the Court against respondents. !hey were all mem&ers of the police force of 9ue:on City and were charged as accessories<after<the<fact in the ro&&ery committed &y the minor (icardo Ca&alo:a, who had already pleaded guilty and had &een convicted. Ca&alo:a was convicted for the ro&&ery of the same items, articles and "ewelries &elonging to =elayo, *nc. valued at P 5>,>43.?7 $pon arraignment, all of the accused entered a plea of ;not guilty;. 'owever, &efore the trial could proceed, the prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended *nformation, dated 6@ #ecem&er 3458, see1ing to amend the original information &y, A3B changing the offense charged from ;(o&&ery; to ;(o&&ery in an $ninha&ited Place,; A6B alleging conspiracy among all the accused, and ACB deleting all items, articles and "ewelries alleged to have &een stolen in the original *nformation and su&stituting them with a different set of items valued at P53,CC8.@7. Private respondents opposed the admission of the Amended *nformation. 'ence, this petition. *SS$., WD+ the private respondent may opposed the admission of the amended information. '.)#, Amendment of an information under Sec. 3?, (ule 337 of the 34@> (ules on Criminal Procedure Aformerly, Section 3C, (ule 337 of the old (ules on Criminal ProcedureB may &e made at any time &efore the accused enters a plea to the charge. !hereafter and during the trial, amendments to the information may also &e allowed, as to matters of form, pr ovided that no pre(udice is caused to the rights of the accused. !he test as to when the rights of an accused are pre"udiced &y the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer &e availa&le after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended.

%n the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can &e made at anytime. !he proposed amendments in the amended information, in the instant case, are clearly su&stantial and have the effect of changing the crime charged from ;(o&&ery; punisha&le under Article 674 to ;(o&&ery in an $ninha&ited Place; punisha&le under Art. C76 of the (evised Penal Code, there&y e/posing the private respondents<accused to a higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposa&le for the offense charged in the original information to which the accused had already entered a plea of ;not guilty; during their arraignment. Moreover, the change in the items, articles and "ewelries allegedly stolen into entirely different articles from those originally complained of, affects the essenCe of the imputed crime, and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations in the amended information, in the preparation of their defenses to the charge filed against them. !he allegation of conspiracy among all the private respondents<accused, which was not previously included in the original information, is li1ewise a su&stantial amendment saddling the respondents with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different situation in the trial court. +eedless to emphasi:e, as in criminal cases, the li&erty, even the life, of the accused is at sta1e, it is always wise and proper that he &e fully apprised of the charges, to avoid any possi&le surprise that may lead to in"ustice. !he prosecution has too many facilities to covet the added advantage of meeting unprepared adversaries. #*SM*SS.#.