This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-01-17 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot follow the recommendation of the OCA. Respondent clearly erred when he rendered the assailed Order. The rules set the proper procedure[20] for the investigation of complaints and designate the prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation.[21] The function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[22] It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the prosecutor determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the prosecutor's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution.[23] The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons.[24] However, while prosecuting officers have the authority to prosecute persons shown to be guilty of a crime,[25] they have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an investigation, the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.[26] Judges should not unduly interfere with the exercise of the power to prosecute on the part of fiscals. | |||||