Antonio Ramos (deceased) substituted by his Surviving Heirs vs People and Rogerio EscobalGR no. 11!"!# $uly 1%# &'1'(acts) The case started when four (4) stocks certificates of Antonio Ramos were allegedly falsified by Emerito Ramos Sr. and Rogerio Escobal.o Making it aear that the assignee of the !uestioned stock certificates is EM Ramos " Sons instead of Antonio Ramos as the lawful and legal assignee of the shares of stocks.o Making falsely aear that Susan Ramos (wife of Emerito Sr.) indorsed the stock certificates with intent to assign the same in fa#or of EM Ramos " Sons. After reliminary in#estigation$ the in#estigating rosecutor issued a Resolution finding a robable cause and recommending both Escobal and Emerito Ramos Sr. for #iolation of .% of Article &'& of R(). Making any alteration in genuine document which change its meaning *rom the resolution it answers to issues+o &st, -./ robable e0ist. Resodent Emerito Ramos Sr. failed that the deed of assignment was nullied and he unilaterally rescinded the contract.o 1nd, -./ resondent Escobal consired to commit falsification. )omlainant sufficiently establish e#idence by resenting witnessesthat it not true it was only 2an &3 &334 when Escobal saw the sub5ect certificates. 6t was raffled to the MeT) of 7). )ounsel for the accused filed .mnibus Motion to 8ismiss the case against Emerito Sr. on the ground that he already assed away. And for deferment of the arraignment of the other accused Escobal on the ground that there is a ending MR of Resolution recommending the filling of the cases.o MR was denied by MeT) and ordered entry of a lea of guilty because (R refused to enter lea. .ffice of the rosecutor granted the MR on the ground that Emerito Ramos senior has the authority to rescind the contract unilaterally in the e0ercise of his right under Art &&3& of )). o (no evidence showing that the assignment has been recorded in companys stock and transfer book).o 9e acted in :*$ Ramos Sr.$ ne#er denied authorshi of the signatureo Since the liability of Escobal deends on the criminal liability of Ramos$ there no reason for further rosecution. Assistant (rosecutor $ filed with the MeT) with ;ea#e of court to withdraw the information (etitioner aealed to 8.2 howe#er the latter sustained the Resolution of the )ity (rosecutor. MeT) dismissed the )riminal )ase on the ground that the trial court was con#inced with the finding of )ity (rosecutor which was later sustained by the 8.2 that the robable cause for falsification of commercial document did not e0ist. (ri#ate rosecutor filed MR which was later denied. (etitioner filed certiorari$ rohibition and mandamus with RT). RT) dismissed the case on the ground that once an information or comlaint wasfiled in the court$ the matter of disosition of the case would be left to the sound discretion of the court. The case was ele#ated to )A for re#iew under Rule 41. 9owe#er$ it was dismissed on the ground that re#iew under R41 can only be a#ailed if the assailed decision of RT) was rendered in the e0ercise of the latterHeld)+es.As a rule$ once the criminal action has been instituted by the filing of the information with the court$ the latter ac!uires 5urisdiction and has the authority to determine whether to dismiss the case or con#ict or ac!uit the accused.-here the rosecution is con#inced that the e#idence is insufficient to establish the guilt of an accused$ it cannot be faulted for mo#ing for the withdrawal of the information. 9owe#er$ granting or denying the motion to withdraw$ the court must 5udiciously e#aluate the e#idence in the hands of the rosecution6n this case$ the trial court had sufficiently e0lained the reasons for granting the motion for withdrawal of the 6nformation.