Prosecution of crimes & separation of powers
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the
Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our
laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power to execute
our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute
vests the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion
of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of
factors that are best appreciated by the public prosecutors.[1] The public
prosecutors are solely responsible for the determination of the amount of
evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the filing of
appropriate criminal charges against a respondent. Theirs is also the
quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not criminal cases should be
filed in court.[2]
Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in
the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive
Department, through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine what
constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the
prosecution of supposed offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial
review may be allowed where it is clearly established that the public
prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he has exercised
his discretion “in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law.”[3]
Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in
the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive
Department, through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine what
constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the
prosecution of supposed offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial
review may be allowed where it is clearly established that the public
prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he has exercised
his discretion “in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law.”[3][1] Soberano v. People, G.R. No. 154629, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 125, 139-140; Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 575, 598.
[2] Crespo v. Mogul, No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462, 410; Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 86, 90.
[3] Glaxosmithkline Philippines, Inc. v. Khalid Mehmood Malik, G.R. No. 166924, August 17, 2006, 499 SCRA 268, 273; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynado, G.R. No. 164538 August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 88, 101.
