Short answer. He can, but only in a narrow case. Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code punishes a public officer who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, maliciously refrains from instituting prosecution or tolerates the commission of offences. A dismissal you disagree with is not, by itself, that crime.
What the law says
any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses
Revised Penal Code, Article 208 — Dereliction In Prosecuting Offenses. Read the full provision →
What Article 208 requires
The article reaches any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. Two things have to be shown. First, a duty that the officer was bound to perform and did not. Second, malice — the refusal must be deliberate and improperly motivated, not a judgment call you disagree with. The article also reaches beyond prosecutors: an officer of the law covers police and other enforcement officers, which is why it is the provision usually pointed to when an officer knowingly lets an offence run on.
A dismissal is not a dereliction
This is where most complaints fail, and it is worth being blunt about. A prosecutor is required to evaluate whether there is probable cause, and finding that there is none is the performance of that duty, not a refusal to perform it. Slowness is not malice either, nor is a decision to charge a lesser offence than you asked for, nor a resolution that reads as though your evidence was given short weight. To make out this crime you would need something showing the refusal was bought, arranged, or driven by a relationship with the person complained of — not merely that the outcome was wrong. Which is also why the criminal route is rarely the fastest way to get your case moving.
The remedies that actually address the dismissal
If what you want is your case revived, there is a proper channel for that, and it does not involve accusing anyone. A resolution dismissing a complaint can be taken up on review with the reviewing authority within the prosecution service and, beyond that, with the Department of Justice. The period for doing so is short and runs from your receipt of the resolution, so the date stamped on your copy matters — check the period that applies before doing anything else. Where a resolution is claimed to be so unreasonable that it exceeds the discretion the law allows, the courts can be asked to review it. Those routes address the decision itself, which the criminal complaint does not.
Administrative liability, and what to keep
Alongside both, a prosecutor or police officer can be complained of administratively, and complaints against public officers are commonly brought before the Office of the Ombudsman. That route does not carry the criminal standard of proof, and it can proceed while a review of the dismissal is pending. Whichever path you take, the paperwork decides it: keep your complaint-affidavit and its annexes, the receiving copies showing the dates of filing, every notice or subpoena you were sent, and the resolution itself with the date you received it. Note any hearing that was set and not held. No one can promise that a review will reverse a dismissal or that a complaint against an officer will succeed, but an undocumented grievance rarely gets past the first desk.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 208 — Dereliction In Prosecuting Offenses
- Revised Penal Code, Article 207 — Malicious Delay Of Justice