G.R. Nos. 174813-15 - NILO HIPOS, SR. REPRESENTING DARRYL HIPOS, BENJAMIN CORSIÑO REPRESENTING JAYCEE CORSIÑO, AND ERLINDA VILLARUEL REPRESENTING ARTHUR VILLARUEL, VS. HONORABLE RTC JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, HALL OF JUSTICE, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 86.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-

Ruling

Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a Petition for Certiorari against the assailed Order of Judge Bay. Petitioners counter that the above conclusion, which has been argued by the Solicitor General, is contrary to a ruling of this Court, which allegedly states that the proper remedy in such cases is a Petition for Mandamus and not Certiorari . Petitioners cite the following excerpt from our ruling in Sanchez v. Demetriou [7] : The appreciation of the evidence involves the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor, and we do not find in the case at bar a clear showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of such discretion. The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the Philippines. But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him. The possible exception is where there is an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion that will justify a judicial intrusion into the precincts of the executive. But in such a case the proper remedy to call for such exception is a petition for mandamus , not certiorari or prohibition . [8] (Emphases supplied.) Petitioners have taken the above passage way out of its context. In the case of Sanchez , Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez brought a Petition for Certiorari before this Court, challenging the order of the respondent Judge therein denying his motion to quash the Information filed against him and six other persons for alleged rape and homicide. One of the arguments of Mayor Sanchez was that there was discrimination against him because of the non-inclusion of two other persons in the Information. We held that even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. However, if there was an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors in that case, Mayor Sanchez should have filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel the filing of charges against said two other persons . In the case at bar, the Petition for Mandamus is directed not against the prosecution, but against the trial court, seeking to compel the trial court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the City Prosecutor's Office. The prosecution has already filed a case against petitioners. Recently, in Santos v. Orda, Jr. , [9] we reiterated the doctrine we established in the leading case of Crespo v. Mogul, [10] that once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any dis