Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > July 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19600 July 19, 1967 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19600. July 19, 1967.]

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF QUEZON, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR VICENTE ORENDAIN, JR., Petitioners, v. THE HON. JUDGE ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, as Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, FILEMON JUNTEREAL, ELENO M. JOYAS, FIDEL FARAON, JESUS OROZCO, ET AL., Respondents.

Vicente Orendain, Jr., for Petitioners.

De Mesa and De Mesa & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; POWERS OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS; PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF FISCAL NOT INDISPENSABLE. — The designation of special prosecutors to assist the Provincial Fiscal does not mean that the latter must always be present at every stage of the investigation. Special prosecutors appointed by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, are authorized to sign informations, make investigations and conduct prosecutions. They do not need to secure the consent of the corresponding fiscal to start a prosecution (People v. Henderson, G.R. No. L-10829-30, May 29, 1959). If consent of the Fiscal is not required so that a prosecutor designated in the manner above described may discharge his duties, it stands to reason that the physical presence of the Fiscal is likewise not indispensable. Otherwise the purpose for which the special prosecutor has been designated can easily be defeated by an indifferent or uncooperative Fiscal.

2. ID.; PREJUDICIAL QUESTION; CASE AT BAR. — Where the possible criminal responsibility of respondents, as may be established upon investigation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 300 is not even in issue in the petition for reopening of the Cadastral case, then there exists no prejudicial question which should first be resolved in said petition before the criminal proceedings are started.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This original action in certiorari is directed against certain orders of respondent Judge in Special Civil Action No. 6461 pending in his court.

The pertinent events are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On July 26, 1961 respondent Judge promulgated a decision in Cadastral Case No. 90, LRC Cad. Rec. No. 1516 adjudicating Lot No. 7719 (with an area of 15,505.6854), together with the improvements thereon to the claimant Leon Faraon. The decision was subsequently amended on September 6, 1961, whereby six hundred (600) hectares of Lot No. 7719 were adjudicated to Frances Alice and Leonor Burgess, leaving to Faraon 14,905.6854 hectares.

On October 4, 1961 Leon Faraon, a Catholic priest executed a sworn statement before Notary Public Leonardo L. Guce in an investigation conducted by the Office of the Provincial Governor of Quezon denying that he was the petitioner and claimant of Lot No. 7719 in Cadastral Case No. 90, or that he appeared, let alone gave his testimony, in that proceeding.

In view of the peculiar circumstances thus disclosed in connection with the decision in said case, then Secretary of Justice Alejo Mabanag, acting pursuant to Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, issued on December 6, 1961 Administrative Order No. 300, designating Attorneys Fernando de Leon and Vicente Orendain, Jr. of the Department of Justice as special prosecutors "to assist the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon and City Attorney of Lucena City in the prosecution of the Personnel of the Court of First Instance involved and particularly Jesus Orozco, Filemon Juntereal, Elino Joyas, Fidel Faraon and others for the alleged falsification of public documents, false testimony, and other offenses related to the promulgation of decisions of the Court of First Instance in Cadastral cases of Quezon covering more than 15,000 hectares of land in that province."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accordingly, on January 3, 1962 Attorney Orendain, Jr. started the investigation pursuant to the Administrative Order. On the same day the persons named therein (respondents here) filed a petition for prohibition before respondent Judge (Special Civil Action No. 6461), alleging that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. [Orendain] trataba de comenzar con la investigacion contra los aqui comparecientes en ausencia del recurrido Fiscal Provincial, a los comienzos de la cual ellos impugnation tanto la facultad del investigador como la legalidad y validez del procedimiento;

"b. La susodicha investigacion es improcedente, ilegal y nula, puesto que los hechos que constituven los delitos supuestos, sobre, los cuales versa la misma se encuentran sub-judice y forman cuestiones prejudiciales;

"c. Los recurridos al ordener y practicar la precitada investigacion ban obrado sin jurisdiccion; o en exceso, o con grave abuso de su competencia, y en la tramitacion ordinaria del caso no existe el recurso de apelacion expedito adecuado, mas que la presente Accion Civil Especial por avocacion y prohibicion."cralaw virtua1aw library

On January 4, 1962 respondent Judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction against herein petitioners, restraining them from conducting the preliminary investigation pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice, and another order for them to answer the petition.

Orendain moved to set aside the orders aforesaid and upon denial of the motion came to this Court on certiorari.

The two principal grounds relied upon by herein respondents in their petition below are manifestly unmeritorious and the orders complained of, particularly the injunctive writ, constitute a grave abuse of discretion. The first of said grounds is that petitioning special prosecutors could not legally conduct the investigation in the absence of the Provincial Fiscal. No authority for this novel proposition was or has been cited. The mere fact that the special prosecutors were designated to "assist" the Provincial Fiscal does not mean that the latter must always be present at every stage of the investigation. It was held by this Court in another case: "A lawyer appointed by the Secretary of Justice, pursuant to section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, to assist the City Fiscal, is authorized to sign informations, make investigations and conduct prosecutions. This lawyer does not need to secure the consent of the corresponding Fiscal to start a prosecution. In fact, it is not a secret that the power in said section has often been exercised by the Department of Justice, whenever it did not see eye to eye with the Fiscal on certain matters involving offenses and/or prosecutions." (People v. Henderson, G.R. No. L-10829-30, May 29, 1959). If consent of the Fiscal is not required so that a prosecutor designated in the manner above described may discharge his duties, it stands to reason that the physical presence of the Fiscal is likewise not indispensable. Otherwise the purpose for which the special prosecutor has been designated can be easily defeated by an indifferent or uncooperative Fiscal.

Respondents’ second point is that since a petition for reopening of the Cadastral case has been filed by the Director of Forestry and is now pending in court, the investigation to be conducted by the Fiscal would treat of matters that are sub-judice. Consequently, it is contended, a prejudicial question exists which should be resolved in the said petition before any criminal proceedings are started.

The contention is without merit. The possible criminal responsibility of respondents, as may be established upon investigation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 300, is not in issue in the petition for reopening filed by the Director of Forestry. What is alleged there is that fraud, deceit and misrepresentation had been committed by claimant-movant Leon Faraon in connection with his cadastral application. No reference whatsoever is made to the participation of respondents, who are the persons specifically fingered for investigation in the Administrative Order. The judgment that may be rendered in the cadastral case will not be conclusive as to the guilt or innocence of said respondents.

Wherefore, the writ prayed for is granted: the order of respondent Judge for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as well as the writ itself are hereby set aside. Costs against respondents except the Judge.

Reyes, J .B.L., Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., took no part.




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






July-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23258 July 1, 1967 - ROBERTO R. MONROY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 July 10, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26237 July 10, 1967 - NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ISTHMIAN LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24704 July 10, 1967 - AUYONG HIAN v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967 - PIO MINDANAO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24520 July 11, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 13, 1967 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25859 July 13, 1967 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24340-44 July 18, 1967 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21054 July 18, 1967 - IN RE: MIGUEL CHUN ENG GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19600 July 19, 1967 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23176 & L-23177 July 20, 1967 - PABLO R. TONGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23229 July 20, 1967 - ANDRES P. BARING v. CESAR M. CABAHUG

  • G.R. No. L-25662 July 21, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21495 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO HALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22174 July 21, 1967 - ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN v. FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22356 July 21, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. PATANAO

  • G.R. No. L-23956 July 21, 1967 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. NICOLAS LUTERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23982 July 21, 1967 - DOMINGO ARAO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO R. LUSPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24321 July 21, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23538 July 21, 1967 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. RODOLFO VELAYO

  • G.R. No. 24322 July 21, 1967 - IN RE: ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24989 July 21, 1967 - PEDRO GRAVADOR v. EUTIQUIO MAMIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26222 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26959 July 21, 1967 - OSCAR V. CO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27121 July 21, 1967 - JOSE OSCAR M. SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 483 July 21, 1967 - GIL DE LOS SANTOS v. MARIO BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. L-25515 July 24, 1967 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18060 July 25, 1967 - REMIGIO JOAQUIN v. ISIDRA CUJUANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26245 July 25, 1967 - PABLO MONTEZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26764 July 25, 1967 - BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL TRANSIT SHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23118 July 26, 1967 - POLICARPIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26605 July 27, 1967 - PABLO D. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86 July 27, 1967 - PABLO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27477 July 28, 1967 - TEODORO JULIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19373 July 29, 1967 - FELIX ASEJO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO CHUA JOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 - ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-20560 July 31, 1967 - EMILIANO ACUÑA v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20649 July 31, 1967 - CHUC SIU, ET AL. v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-21275 July 31, 1967 - ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21588 July 31, 1967 - ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22501 July 31, 1967 - MARIANO CALLEJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22604 July 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23002 July 31, 1967 - CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ v. GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24930 July 31, 1967 - SHELL REFINING COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967 - SALUSTIANO O. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.