Perez vs Hagonoy Rural Bank

FACTS: Petitioner was employed by Hagonoy Rural Bank in its subsidiary company, Hagonoy Money Shop (they sell money.lol) 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. 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. The Secretary of Justice, Franklin M. Drilon, ordered the prosecutor to cause the dismissal of the information on the ground of insufficient evidence. Hagonoys MR was DENIED. 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. Hagonoy assailed the dismissal in an MR. 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. 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.