[ G.R. No. 59830. July 31, 1984 ] 216 Phil. 125
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 59830. July 31, 1984 ]
JUAN BAUTISTA, PETITIONER, VS. CITY FISCAL OF DAGUPAN AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
RELOVA, J.:
Petitioner Juan Bautista and one Nenita Marquez filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Dagupan a complaint against Conchita Estrada, Avelina Baniqued and Federico Bautista, for estafa thru falsification of public document. After conducting the preliminary investigation, Assistant Fiscal Dominador M. Manaois dismissed the complaint for lack of prima facie evidence to support the indictment.
Petitioner Juan Bautista did not move for the reconsideration of the fiscal’s resolution; neither did he appeal therefrom to the Ministry of Justice. Instead, Mr. Bautista filed a new complaint with the City Court of Dagupan against the same respondents, charging them with the same offense - estafa thru falsification of public document (docketed as Criminal Case No. 11074).
After conducting the preliminary examination, the City Court found that an offense has been committed and the respondents therein - Conchita Estrada, Avelina Baniqued and Federico Bautista, are probably guilty thereof. Accordingly, a warrant for their arrest was issued and an order directing respondent city fiscal to file the corresponding information.
Respondent city fiscal, through Assistant Fiscal Manaois, filed a manifestation with the city court that he will reinvestigate the case in view of his prior resolution finding no prima facie evidence against the respondent therein. Subpoenas were issued by the city fiscal’s office to the complainants and to their witness, Emilio Fernandez, but the subpoenas were ignored by them. Whereupon, for failure of complainants and their witness to submit themselves for reinvestigation, respondent city fiscal filed with the city court a motion to dismiss the case. Opposition was filed by herein petitioner to the motion. The city court denied respondent city fiscal’s motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, the city court again forwarded the records of the case to respondent city fiscal for the filing of the information. In turn, respondent city fiscal filed a manifestation informing the city court of his inability to prosecute the case because of his sincere and honest belief that he has no prima facie case to warrant the prosecution of the accused. A petition for mandamus was filed in the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (docketed as Civil Case No. D-5219) which rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, this Court hereby GRANTS the petition and hereby ORDERS the city fiscal to file the corresponding information for falsification of public documents against herein accused.” (p. 33, rollo)
From the above decision of the lower court, appeal was interposed to the then Court of Appeals which reversed the decision and dismissed the petition for mandamus.
Hence, this petition for review by certiorari, praying that the decision of the appellate court be reversed and another one entered directing the City Fiscal of Dagupan to file the corresponding information and to prosecute the case.
Section 4, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically provides that “all criminal action either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal.” In Alberto vs. de la Cruz, 98 SCRA 406, the Court held that a fiscal by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to support the allegation thereof. Although this power and prerogative of the fiscal, to determine whether or not the evidence at hand is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that a person committed an offense, is not absolute and subject to judicial review, it would be embarrassing for the prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case when he is in no position to do so, because in his opinion, he does not have the necessary evidence to secure a conviction, or he is not convinced of the merits of the case. The better procedure would be to appeal the Fiscal’s decision to the Ministry of Justice and/or ask for a special prosecutor."
There is no question that the prosecuting fiscal has the right to conduct his own investigation. As early as 1938, it has been the ruling that after a criminal case has been forwarded by the inferior court to the trial court which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and before the fiscal has filed the necessary information, the latter not only has the power but also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the complaint filed in inferior court was based, to examine the evidence submitted and such other evidence as the parties may deem proper to submit on their own free will or on demand of the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether there is at least prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the accused and overcoming the presumption of innocence in his favor. If after he has done all these and considering all the circumstances of the case, the fiscal believes that the evidence is not sufficient to establish prima facie the guilt of the accused, he should submit to the court before which the case is pending the corresponding motion for dismissal. (People vs. Ovilla, 65 Phil. 722). Further, in Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Judge Ambrocio, T. Dollete, 103 Phil. 914, the court very clearly said that “because of the right of a prosecuting attorney to conduct his own investigation of a criminal case elevated to him from the justice of the peace, naturally, there is corresponding duty or obligation of the prosecuting witness, especially the offended parties, to submit to said investigation. Consequently, said offended parties and their legal counsel, the private prosecutor, are not justified in refusing to submit to the same and to give their testimonies x x x. It is rather embarrassing for a prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case when he is in no position to do so, because in his opinion he does not have the necessary evidence to secure conviction or he is not convinced of the merits of the case. If the prosecuting attorney fails or refuses to file said information within a reasonable time, then either the offended parties or the court could invoked Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code so that the Department of Justice could designate one to act as Provincial Fiscal and file the corresponding complaint or information.” Finally, in Salcedo vs. Suarez, 80 SCRA 237, We held that “[u]pon receipt of the record in the court of first instance from the municipal court, it is well settled as reaffirmed in Talusan vs. Ofiana that the Provincial fiscal (or his assistant) has the power ‘to conduct his own investigation or reinvestigation of a case already elevated to the Court of First Instance by a Municipal Judge or justice of the peace who conducted a preliminary investigation thereon, in order to determine his own course of action as prosecuting officer’, and thereafter he may either move to dismiss the case or file the corresponding information.”
Indeed, how can the prosecuting fiscal secure the conviction of an accused on evidence beyond reasonable doubt when he himself is not convinced that he has a prima facie case against him!
But then, let’s say that the fiscal simply refuses to institute a case against a respondent even if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the filing of an information. As Stated above, the remedy is appeal to the Ministry of Justice (then Department of Justice) and, if there is evidence, administrative complaint against the prosecuting officer for ignorance of the law, neglect of duty, partiality and/or bribery.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, We find no cogent reason to set aside the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, dated November 5, 1981.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., reserve his vote.
Aquino, J., see concurrence.