Antonio Ramos (deceased) substituted by his Surviving Heirs vs People and

Rogerio Escobal
GR no. 171565, July 13, 2010
Facts:
The case started when four (4) stocks certificates of Antonio Ramos were
allegedly falsified by Emerito Ramos Sr. and Rogerio Escobal.
o Making it appear that the assignee of the questioned stock certificates is
EM Ramos & Sons instead of Antonio Ramos as the lawful and legal
assignee of the shares of stocks.
o Making falsely appear that Susan Ramos (wife of Emerito Sr.) indorsed
the stock certificates with intent to assign the same in favor of EM Ramos
& Sons.
After preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution
finding a probable cause and recommending both Escobal and Emerito Ramos
Sr. for violation of p.6 of Article 171 of RPC. Making any alteration in genuine
document which change its meaning
From the resolution it answers to issues:
o 1st- WON probable exist.
Respodent Emerito Ramos Sr. failed that the deed of assignment
was nullied and he unilaterally rescinded the contract.
o 2nd- WON respondent Escobal conspired to commit falsification.
Complainant sufficiently establish evidence by presenting witnesses
that it not true it was only Jan 19 1998 when Escobal saw the
subject certificates.
It was raffled to the MeTC of QC.
Counsel for the accused filed Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the case against
Emerito Sr. on the ground that he already passed away. And for deferment of the
arraignment of the other accused Escobal on the ground that there is a pending
MR of Resolution recommending the filling of the cases.
o MR was denied by MeTC and ordered entry of a plea of guilty because PR
refused to enter plea.
Office of the prosecutor granted the MR on the ground that Emerito Ramos
senior has the authority to rescind the contract unilaterally in the exercise of his
right under Art 1191 of CC.
o (no evidence showing that the assignment has been recorded in
companys stock and transfer book).
o He acted in GF, Ramos Sr., never denied authorship of the signature
o Since the liability of Escobal depends on the criminal liability of Ramos,
there no reason for further prosecution.
Assistant Prosecutor , filed with the MeTC with Leave of court to withdraw the
information

Petitioner appealed to DOJ however the latter sustained the Resolution of the
City Prosecutor.
MeTC dismissed the Criminal Case on the ground that the trial court was
convinced with the finding of City Prosecutor which was later sustained by the
DOJ that the probable cause for falsification of commercial document did not
exist.
Private prosecutor filed MR which was later denied.
Petitioner filed certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with RTC.
RTC dismissed the case on the ground that once an information or complaint was
filed in the court, the matter of disposition of the case would be left to the sound
discretion of the court.
The case was elevated to CA for review under Rule 42. However, it was dismissed
on the ground that review under R42 can only be availed if the assailed decision
of RTC was rendered in the exercise of the latters appellate jurisdiction.
Hence, petition to SC under Rule 45 (certiorari)

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of petition by Antono Ramos is correct?
Held:

Yes.
As a rule, once the criminal action has been instituted by the filing of the
information with the court, the latter acquires jurisdiction and has the authority to
determine whether to dismiss the case or convict or acquit the accused.
Where the prosecution is convinced that the evidence is insufficient to establish
the guilt of an accused, it cannot be faulted for moving for the withdrawal of the
information. However, granting or denying the motion to withdraw, the court must
judiciously evaluate the evidence in the hands of the prosecution
In this case, the trial court had sufficiently explained the reasons for granting the
motion for withdrawal of the Information.