Perez vs Hagonoy Rural Bank

FACTS:
Petitioner was employed by Hagonoy Rural Bank in its subsidiary
company, Hagonoy Money Shop (they sell money.lol)
o 1992 to 1995 an accounting/auditing firm found anomalies in more
than 28 savings accounts.
The anomalies unearthed by the auditing firm prompted Hagonoy to file an
affidavit-complaint for Estafa against Perez, et. al.
o Prosecutor Manarang found prima facie evidence and
recommended the filing of the information with the RTC of Malolos.
Perez filed a petition for review in the DOJ praying for dismissal.
o The Secretary of Justice, Franklin M. Drilon, ordered the prosecutor
to cause the dismissal of the information on the ground of
insufficient evidence.
o Hagonoys MR was DENIED.
o Pursuant to the DOJ order, Prosecutor filed a motion on the RTC
praying for dismissal of the case against Perez and the admission
of an amended information excluding Perez as one of the accused.
o Hagonoy assailed the dismissal in an MR.
o Presiding Judge Masadao denied the MR after finding that
Hagonoy had no legal personality to question the dismissal of the
criminal charge against the petitioner.
Hagonoy filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for
TRO/Injunction with the CA. CA SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF RTC.
o CA ordered Judge Masadao to resolve with dispatch the private
respondents MR on the basis of its merit or lack thereof.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Masadao committed grave abuse of discretion in
granting the prosecutors MTD without an independent assessment of the
sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence against Perez?
RULING: YES!
It is wrong for Judge Masadao to dismiss the case based solely on the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The trial judge did not make an
independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. The reliance on
the prosecutors averment that the Secretary of Justice had recommended the
dismissal of the case against Perez was an abdication of the trial courts duty and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
As pronounce by the SC in the case of Crespo vs CA:
The grant of the motion to dismiss was based upon considerations other than the
judges own personal individual conviction that there was no case against the
accused. Whether to approve or reject the stand taken by the prosecution is not
the exercise of discretion required in cases like this. The trial judge must himself

be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused,
and this conclusion can be arrived at only after assessment of the evidence in
the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial
judges own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and
proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecutions words for
its supposed insufficieny.
In failing to make an independent finding of the merits of the case and merely
anchoring rhe dismissal on the revised position of the prosecution, the trial judge
relinquished the discretion he was duty bound to exercise. In effect, it was the
prosecution, through the DOJ which decided what to do and not the court which
was reduced to a mere rubber stamp.