Bureau of Customs v. Peter Sherman et al., G.R. No. 190487, April 13, 2011

Crim Pro - Rule 110

Facts: Mark Sensing Philippines, Inc. (MSPI), the company of the respondents, caused the importation of 255, 870,000 pieces of finished bet slips and 205, 200 rolls of finished thermal papers from June 2005 to January 2007.   MSPI facilitated the release of the shipment from the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ), where it was brought, to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for its lotto operations in Luzon. The problem was MSPI did not pay duties or taxes, so, the Bureau of Customs filed a criminal complaint before the DOJ against the respondents.

            State Prosecutor Rohaira Lao-Tamano, by Resolution of March       25, 2008, found probable cause against respondents and accordingly recommended the filing of Information against them. Respondents filed a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice  during the pendency of which  the Information was filed on April 11, 2009 before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Only respondents Cajigal and Lingan were served warrants of arrest following which they posted cash bail bonds.

          By March 20, 2009, the Secretary of Justice reversed the State Prosecutor’s Resolution and accordingly directed the withdrawal of the Information. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of April 29, 2009, it elevated the case by certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA GR SP No. 10-9431.

          In the meantime, Prosecutor Lao-Tamano filed before the CTA a Motion to Withdraw Information with Leave of Court to which petitioner filed an Opposition. Respondents, on their part, moved for the dismissal of the Information.

          The CTA, by the herein assailed Resolution of September 3, 2009, granted the withdrawal of, and accordingly dismissed the Information. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed on September 22, 2009 was Noted Without Action by the CTA.

Issue: Whether or not a public prosecutor has the power of direction and control over prosecution of criminal cases.

Held: It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators.  Thus, all criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. In the prosecution of special laws, however, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor; but this designation does not detract from the public prosecutor having control and supervision over the case.

The participation in the case of a private complainant, like petitioner, is limited to that of a witness, both in the criminal and civil aspect of the case.  As petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the challenged CTA Resolution did not bear the imprimatur of the public prosecutor to which the control of the prosecution of the case belongs, the present petition fails.