SUBJECT:

Legprof

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
No misquoting or
28feb2016
Arabe
misrepresenting
content of papers
CASE NAME: Manalo v calderon
PONENTE: chico nazario
Case Date: 2009
Case Summary:
Complainant sought to re-open a criminal case where the petitioners are allegedly
involved. They filed informations against them. The city prosecutor wanted to withdraw
the information on the grounds of lack of probable cause.
The judge denied the prosecutors motions and ruled that they be included since
probable cause was established.
The petitioners appealed under rule 65 mandamus saying that the judge should follow
the recommendation of the prosecutor to drop the case.
The petitioners cited several cases mostly importantlly the montesa and the
Ledesma case. They made it seem like the quotated passages were directly lifted from
the decisions when they were altered to help the petitioners case.
Mandamus can only apply to a judge when he does not act on his duties. It cannot
compel a judge to do his duties in a specific way.
The court denied the petition, ordered counsel to explain why no disciplinary proceeding
should be held against him
Rule of Law:
Misquoting SC decisions should never be done
Detailed Facts:
Several information of rape and acts of lasciviousness against the petitioners
Complainants AAA and BBB want a review of the information because they think
there are errors
The prosecutor moved to have these dismissed for lack of probable cause
The judge ruled in favor of the complainants and ordered the information to be
reviewed
The petitioners appealed under rule 65 mandamus to order the judge to dismiss
the case
Issue:
(P) W/N the writ of mandamus is applicable
(s) w/n probable cause exists
Holding:
1. Mandamus does not apply. The upholding or denying information is discretionary
upon a judge, he cannot be ordered to do his duties in a certain way.
The petitioners misquoted the case of people v montesa
Quoted text:
In the instant case, the respondent Judge granted the motion for
reinvestigation and directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan
to conduct the reinvestigation. The former was, therefore, deemed to
have deferred to the authority of the prosecution arm of the
Government to consider the so-called new relevant and material evidence
BLOCK D 2019 1

and determine whether the information it had filed should stand

Original text
The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or
acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. While
the prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution
of the case, he cannot impose his opinion on the court. The court is
the best and sole judge on what to do with the case. Accordingly, a motion to
dismiss the case filed by the prosecutor before or after the arraignment, or
after a reinvestigation, or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who
reviewed the records upon reinvestigation, should be addressed to the
discretion of the court. The action of the court must not, however, impair the
substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of
law
They also misquoted the fallo of the Ledesma
Quoted text:
WHEREFORE, finding no probable cause against the herein accused for the
crimes of rapes and acts of lasciviousness, the motion to withdraw
informations is DENIED.
Orginal text:
After a careful study of the sworn statements of the complainants and the
resolution dated March 3, 2006 of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C.
de Vera, the Court finds that there was probable cause against the
herein accused

2. The court also chose to declare that there was probable cause but did not explain
saying that the judges decision was enough.
Ruling:
Denied because of lack of merit. Counsel for petitioners, atty beltran jr is ordered to
comment on why no disciplinary proceeding should be filed
Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019 2