Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > September 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30991 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG ENG

053 Phil 544:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30991. September 17, 1929.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONG ENG, complainant and appellant. UY CHIN CHI, CHUN SIN, TAN TUA (alias Tan y Cuan), TIN CO and LIM TAN, Defendants-Appellees.

Ramon Diokno and Lacson, Paredes & Abrera for Appellant.

No appearance for plaintiff.

No appearance for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMINAL CASES; PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL UPON MOTION OF FISCAL. — When a provincial fiscal, in view of the facts of the two cases, apprehends that it would be an absurdity on his part to conduct both prosecutions, said officer, being responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases (section 1681, Administrative Code; U. S. v. Reyes, 20 Phil., 442), has a right to ask for the dismissal of the cases so as to make a reinvestigation in order the better to conform his action and attitude therein to the real facts and to the dictates and requirements of justice and the public interest.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of dismissal jointly entered in this case and another bearing G. R. No. 30992 1 of this court.

The appeal is taken by the offended party, who assigns as error of the lower court the dismissal of the case upon motion of the fiscal without sufficient ground.

Said motion of the fiscal is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the undersigned has always opposed the dismissal of either of these two cases, and has given his tacit consent to the date set for a joint hearing thereof by Judge Paredes, in the bona fide belief that such procedure adopted by said judge is not anomalous and irregular; and, furthermore, that the interest parties were agreeable to said hearing;

"2. That judging by the order issued yesterday, this honorable court is not agreeable that these two cases be tried jointly as ordered by said Judge Paredes;

"3. That according to the tenor of said order, it appears that this honorable court is not disposed to designate which of the two cases is to be tried first;

"4. That the undersigned is of the humble opinion that the setting of a date for the hearing of the two cases is incumbent upon the clerk of this honorable court.

"Wherefore, and in conformity with the aforesaid order of this honorable court, the undersigned respectfully prays for the dismissal of both cases in order to make a reinvestigation thereof for the purposes of presenting only one criminal action for the crime resulting from said reinvestigation." (Pages 117 and 118, original record.)

The attorneys of the herein appellant objected to this petition and presented their respective pleadings (see pages 121-123, 126-129, original record).

The court resolved the question by entering the following order which is the object of the present appeal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering that the informations in these two cases are nothing more than the result of two absolutely contradictory and irreconcilable versions of one and the same incident;

"Considering that the provincial fiscal cannot conduct the prosecution in these two cases, cannot sustain two prosecutions which are incompatible with each other;

"Considering that the People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff in these two cases to enable him to institute a single criminal action for the crime resulting from his reinvestigation." (Pages 130 and 131, original record.)

"Wherefore, the court hereby grants the motion of the prosecuting officer praying for the provisional dismissal of these two cases to enable him to institute a single criminal action for the crime resulting form his reinvestigation." (Pages 130 and 131, original record.)

We believe that the fiscal had sufficient grounds to ask the court for the dismissal of the two cases for the purpose of reinvestigating them and to take such action as may be prompted by the result of the reinvestigation.

Our conclusion is not exactly based upon the facts and opinions set forth in the fiscal’s motion, but rather on his object in asking for the dismissal, namely, to investigate the case again and thereafter take such action as the interests of justice may require; such an attitude indicated his uncertainty as to which of the two cases was to be prosecuted.

Although this court held in the case of People v. Mediavilla (52 Phil., 94) that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; FILING OF DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS AGAINST GUILTY AND OFFENDED PARTIES. — The filing of an information against some defendants for the murder of an individual, and then another information for frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries against said individual and others, because said individual had fired three shots at one of his assailants with his revolver, and because another of the defendants, the accused in the instant case, had wounded said assailant, does not disqualify the prosecuting attorney from sustaining said charges, because the accused in the one may be the offended parties in the other and vice versa, nor does it violate professional ethics’ which forbids an attorney to represent adverse interests, since in both cases the prosecuting attorney represents the public," nevertheless, when the provincial fiscal, in view of the facts of the cases, apprehends that it would be an absurdity on his part to conduct both prosecutions, said officer, being responsible for the prosecution, said officer, being responsible for the prosecutions, said officer, being responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases (section 1681, Administrative Code; U. S. v. Reyes, 20 Phil., 510; and U. S. v. Despabiladeras and Laxamana, 32 Phil., 442), has a right to investigate the cases more thoroughly in order the better to conform his action and attitude therein to the real facts and to the dictates and requirements of justice and the public interest.

And in granting said motion of the provincial fiscal, the court did no more than recognize the great responsibility devolving on him and the rights it had in helping him in the better performance of his duties.

We find no error in the order appealed from, and the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Uy Tiam Su, p. 547, post.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30826 September 2, 1929 - VIDAL CRISOSTOMO v. FRANCISCO VIRI ET AL.,

    053 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 30831 September 2, 1929 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TAN ONG SZE

    053 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 31951 September 4, 1929 - PHIL. TRUST CO. v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    053 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 31310 September 5, 1929 - G. C. JAVIER v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    053 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 30850 September 6, 1929 - CASIMIRO MANUEL v. JOSE CASTILLO

    053 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 31851 September 6, 1929 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. AMERICAN TRADING CO.

    053 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 31057 September 7, 1929 - ADRIANO ARBES ET AL. v. VICENTE POLISTICO ET AL.

    053 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 30112 September 9, 1929 - MABALACAT SUGAR CO. v. JOSE V. RAMIREZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 31150 September 10, 1929 - GETTY MONITZ DE MILLER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 30286 September 12, 1929 - M. TEAGUE v. H. MARTIN

    053 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 31063 September 13, 1929 - CITY OF MANILA v. THE RIZAL PARK CO.

    053 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 31464 September 13, 1929 - RESTITUTO VILLEGAS v. ATILANO VILLEGAS

    053 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 31067 September 14, 1929 - MANILA PUBLISHING COMPANY v. HONORABLE JOSE BERNABE

    053 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 31058 September 16, 1929 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. FORTUNATO G. LAPID

    053 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 30991 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG ENG

    053 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 30992 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY TIAM SU

    053 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 31801 September 19, 1929 - F. BASTIDA v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 31244 September 23, 1929 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NAZARIO S. JUREIDINI

    053 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 32025 September 23, 1929 - FRANCISCO BELTRAN v. FELIX SAMSON

    053 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 30903 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MONTIL

    053 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 31013 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO K. ALAFRIZ

    053 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 31254 September 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO CABALLERO ET AL.

    053 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 30342 September 26, 1929 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    053 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 30711 September 26, 1929 - PABLO PERLAS v. ALFRED EHRMAN ET AL.

    053 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. 31010 September 26, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO GUTIERREZ

    053 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 30591 September 27, 1929 - GENEROSO AVELLANOSA v. BERNARDO VEROY

    053 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 30888 September 28, 1929 - VIUDA E HIJOS DE CRISPULO ZAMORA v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 613