COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THE CONTROL OF PROSECUTION UNDER RULE 110 (PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (PHILIPPINES)

I. OVERVIEW

Rule 110 of the Rules of Court governs the prosecution of offenses in the Philippines. It details how criminal actions are commenced, who may file them, and how they proceed. One pivotal concept under this rule is the control of the prosecution, which speaks to the authority, responsibilities, and limitations of the public prosecutor (or the Office of the Prosecutor) in initiating, conducting, and discontinuing criminal proceedings.

Under Philippine criminal procedure, a criminal action is ordinarily filed in the name of the People of the Philippines, represented by the government through its duly authorized prosecutors. This underscores the principle that a crime is considered an offense against the State, thereby vesting the primary authority and responsibility for prosecuting criminal cases in the public prosecutor’s office.

II. STATUTORY BASIS AND GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

Rule 110, Section 5 (“Who must prosecute criminal actions”)
Although the Rules of Court do not always use the exact heading “Control of Prosecution,” Rule 110, Section 5 establishes the principle that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The relevant text provides that criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor cannot attend to the prosecution of the case, the private prosecutor may prosecute the case, subject to the court’s approval.
Public Prosecutor as “People’s Lawyer”
The public prosecutor is regarded as the official representative of the People of the Philippines in all criminal proceedings. As such, the prosecutor decides:
- What charge(s) to file, based on the evidence and the applicable law;
- Which witnesses or evidence to present;
- Whether or not to prosecute a particular case (if probable cause is found lacking);
- How to direct the theory and strategy of the prosecution.
Justification for Prosecutorial Control
- State Interest in Punishing Crimes: Crimes are viewed as offenses against the State, not merely private wrongs against an individual victim.
- Promotion of Fair Justice: Prosecutors, being public officers, are mandated to ensure that only those cases supported by probable cause proceed to trial.
- Protection from Private Vindictiveness: Centralizing criminal prosecution in public office ensures that personal vendettas, biases, or private motives do not improperly influence criminal proceedings.

III. SCOPE AND EXERCISE OF THE PROSECUTOR’S CONTROL

Power to Conduct Preliminary Investigation
- Before filing the Information in court, the prosecutor (or investigating prosecutor) typically conducts a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
- The resolution on whether to file an Information in court is generally based on the findings of the preliminary investigation.
Drafting and Filing of the Information
- Once probable cause is found, the prosecutor prepares the Information (the formal charge) and files it in the proper court.
- The Information must be signed by the prosecutor (or an authorized officer) and must comply with the formal requirements under Rule 110, such as stating the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, and the acts or omissions constituting the offense.
Direction and Management of the Case during Trial
- Once the Information is filed, the public prosecutor takes the lead in presenting evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Decisions on who among the witnesses to present, what documentary or object evidence to offer, and how to examine or cross-examine witnesses fall within the exclusive domain of the prosecution.
- The trial court cannot unduly interfere by directing the prosecution on which witnesses to call or how to present evidence, though it may intervene to maintain order and ensure due process.
Withdrawal of the Information or Motion to Dismiss
- Part of the prosecutor’s control is deciding whether to continue prosecuting a case. If new evidence or other circumstances indicate that the prosecution cannot secure a conviction or that the accused is not likely guilty, the prosecutor may move for dismissal or withdrawal of the Information, subject to judicial approval.
- The court has the power to either grant or deny the motion to dismiss. Should the court believe that granting it would not serve the interests of justice, it may refuse the motion. This is where judicial discretion and supervision come into play, ensuring the prosecutor’s control is not absolute.
Amendment of the Information
- The prosecutor may amend the Information before arraignment without leave of court.
- After the accused has been arraigned, any amendment that would prejudice the rights of the accused would require leave of court.
- Minor or formal amendments that do not prejudice the rights of the accused can be made even after arraignment, subject to certain rules.
Role of Private Prosecutor
- In certain circumstances, particularly if the public prosecutor is unable to attend or if the public prosecutor expressly allows it, a private prosecutor (usually hired by the offended party) may assist in the conduct of the trial.
- However, the overarching authority and control remain with the public prosecutor; the private prosecutor merely acts under the supervision and control of the public prosecutor, ensuring consistency with the public interest.
Limitations to the Prosecutor’s Control
- Judicial Oversight: While the prosecutor decides whether or not to prosecute a case, courts have the final say on approving or denying motions to dismiss or withdraw cases.
- Ethical and Legal Boundaries: Prosecutors are duty-bound to adhere to ethical standards, uphold due process, and avoid malicious or baseless prosecutions. Their discretion is not unlimited. They must ensure the fair administration of justice.
- Special Prosecutors or Deputized Prosecutors: In some instances, state agencies (e.g., the Office of the Ombudsman) may deputize prosecutors to handle cases within their jurisdiction. The general principle of prosecutorial control still applies, modified only by the special rules of the deputizing authority.
Effect of Private Offenses (or Private Crimes)
- Certain crimes (e.g., Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness under specific circumstances) require a private complaint by the offended party. While the action is still in the name of the People of the Philippines, the impetus for prosecution depends on the offended party’s complaint.
- Once a proper complaint is filed, prosecutorial control remains in place. However, if the law requires the offended party’s participation (e.g., in the event of a pardon by the offended spouse in adultery), that can affect the prosecution’s ability to continue.

IV. IMPORTANT JURISPRUDENTIAL POINTS

People v. Paredes and similar cases:
Emphasize the idea that the prosecutor exercises exclusive discretion in the manner of presenting the People’s evidence. The court has no authority to compel the prosecution to present a particular witness or piece of evidence if the prosecutor decides otherwise.
Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987):
A seminal case clarifying that once a complaint or information is filed in court, the case is placed under the court’s jurisdiction, and the court has the power to decide whether or not to grant motions to withdraw or dismiss the information. However, the prosecution remains the principal authority in deciding how to proceed with the case, subject to the court’s final approval on dismissals.
Martinez v. Court of Appeals:
Highlights that private prosecutors may be permitted to participate only under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The public interest in the fair administration of justice trumps private interests.

V. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Ensuring Accountability and Independence
- Prosecutorial independence helps prevent undue influence from external parties.
- It also ensures that prosecutions are based on legal and factual sufficiency rather than partisan or personal interests.
Coordination between Public Prosecutor and Private Complainants
- While the prosecutor leads the prosecution, cooperation with the offended party often strengthens the case.
- Private complainants and private counsel provide essential evidence, testimonies, and resources, but the final decisions remain with the public prosecutor.
Protecting the Accused’s Rights
- Proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion ensures that frivolous or malicious cases do not prosper, thereby protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal prosecutions.
- Judicial oversight serves as an additional check, preventing arbitrary or capricious prosecution actions.
Resolution of Cases through Plea Bargaining
- Under the control of the prosecution, plea bargaining may be entered into when allowed by law and jurisprudence. The prosecutor evaluates if a plea to a lesser offense and its recommended penalty serve the public interest and the ends of justice.

VI. CONCLUSION

Control of prosecution under Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is a cornerstone of the Philippine criminal justice system. It signifies the broad authority of public prosecutors to direct, manage, and ultimately decide the course of criminal proceedings, from the initiation of charges to their withdrawal or conclusion in court. This control ensures that criminal prosecutions reflect the public interest, adhere to ethical standards, and respect the rights of both the offended party and the accused. While the prosecutorial discretion is vast, it is not without limits—judicial supervision, legal ethics, and procedural safeguards serve as essential counterweights. Ultimately, the guiding objective is the fair and expeditious administration of justice for all.