SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-37876 May 25, 1979

JOSE BERNARDO and ROSARIO GUICO BERNARDO, Petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch 1, Zamboanga del Norte and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the HON. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, Respondents.

CONCEPCION JR., J.:

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government. *

The administration of justice in the Philippines firmly rests on the postulate that in this fair land of ours no man, no matter how poor, no matter how humble shall ever thirst for justice. Petitioners and spouses Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico Bernardo are common barrio people, victims of harassment and persecution. They thirst for justice. As an ultimate recourse they have come to Us for relief. Their cause is meritorious. They are entitled to relief. They shall receive it immediately.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

This petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with preliminary mandatory injunction places in issue the alleged grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction perpetrated by the respondents in refusing to dismiss Criminal Case No. 1103, of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch I (Judge Rafael T. Mendoza), entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico Bernardo, notwithstanding the evident facts that the charge of estafa emanated from a purely civil obligation and the offended parties accepted payment, including interest, and filed spontaneous desistance during the preliminary investigation of the case; and the refusal of respondents to fix and accept bail bond for petitioners in the aforementioned criminal case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The facts appearing of record are:

(1) On the basis of an affidavit (Annex "A" to petition) of Anacleto Q. Olvis, the Chief of Police of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, filed on July 17, 1973, a complaint for estafa (Annex "A-1 " to petition), in the amount of P9,008.13, with the Municipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, against petitioners Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico Bernardo;chanrobles virtual law library

(2) After the preliminary examination the Manukan Municipal Court issued an order (Annex "B" to the petition) for the arrest of petitioners and fixed the bail bond at P3,000; petitioner Jose Bernardo was arrested and detained at the Manukan Municipal jail; on July 9, 1973, he posted a bail bond and was released; chanrobles virtual law library

(3) On July 23, 1973, the Municipal Court of Manukan issued an order (Annex "C" to petition) recalling its previous order to arrest granting bail to the accused and ordering the arrest of the accused without bail, pursuant to General Order No. 29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General Order No. 2, dated September 30, 1972 of the President of the Republic, ordering the arrest and detention of persons accused of swindling, in large scale; chanrobles virtual law library

(4) On July 26,1973, the spouses Anacleto Q. Olvis and Iniega Olvis appeared before the Municipal Court of Manukan, and filed a joint affidavit of desistance (Annex "D" to petition), withdrawing the case against petitioners because their witnesses had turned hostile and they could not prove the case; chanrobles virtual law library

(5) Petitioners' counsel filed a motion to quash the case and recall the warrant of arrest (Annex "E" to petition) on the ground that complaint was civil in nature and the complainants "have lost interest in the case": the Chief of Police Serafin Lorenzo and the Special Counsel (prosecutor) Crisostomo C. Empaynado signed the said motion; chanrobles virtual law library

(6) On the same date that the motion was filed (July 26, 1973), the sum of P9,008.13, excluding the interest in the amount of P1,080.00 paid directly to Anacleto Olvis was deposited in the Municipal Court of Manukan as payment of the amount alleged in the complaint, which sum was delivered to and accepted by Anacieto Olvis on July 26, 1973, and who signed a receipt therefor on July 27, 1973 (Annexes "F", "G ", "Y", "Z" to petition); chanrobles virtual law library

(7) There being no objection on the part of the fiscal and the Chief of Police, the Municipal Court of Manukan in its order of July 26, 1973 (Annex "H" to petition) provisionally quashed or recalled the warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 1345 subject to the final approval of the provincial fiscal and/or his assistants; chanrobles virtual law library

(8) Two days after the record of Criminal Case No. 1345 was sent to the office of the Provincial Fiscal on August 6, 1973, Anacleto Olvis requested for a reinvestigation of the case on the ground that witnesses who have turned hostile were willing to testify for the prosecution (Annex "I" and "J" to petition); chanrobles virtual law library

(9) Special Counsel Crisostomo Empaynado (prosecutor) in the Municipal Court of Manukan in Criminal Case No. 1345 was relieved and replaced by the Provincial Fiscal who assigned Special Counsel Wilfredo G. Guantero to conduct the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 1345 (Annex "K" to petition); chanrobles virtual law library

(10) Special Counsel Guantero not with standing his knowledge of the payment received by Anacleto Olvis required the petitioners to file counter affidavits, whereupon petitioners, thru counsel, filed a motion to dismiss (Annex "L" to petition) on the grounds that the nature of the complaint in the case was only civil and not criminal; and that the supposed offended parties agreed to a dismissal of the complaint after receiving payment of the amount claimed, plus interest: chanrobles virtual law library

(11) On September 25, 1973, petitioners informed the investigating Fiscal in writing (Annex "M" to petition) that the case was purely civil in nature, providing him with copies of the promissory notes voluntarily returned by the complainant Anacleto Olvis to the petitioners when he received payment for as claim that led to the dismissal of the criminal case in the Municipal Court of Manukan; chanrobles virtual law library

(12) On October 23, 1973, the investigating Fiscal denied petitioners' motion to dismiss, whereupon petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on October 31, 1973 (Annex "N" to petition) together with the counter affidavit of petitioner Rosario Guico Bernardo explaining the civil nature of the transactions with complainant Anacleto Olvis; chanrobles virtual law library

(13) The investigating fiscal denied the motion for reconsideration and filed an information for simple estafa (Art. 315-1-B, Revised Penal Code) against the petitioners (Annex "O" to petition) on October 31, 1973 in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1103; with a motion to admit information, and to issue warrant of arrest, without any bail bond recommended (Annex " P " to petition); chanrobles virtual law library

(14) On November 7, 1973, respondent judge issued an order and a warrant of arrest against petitioners without fixing any bail bond (Annexes "Q" and "Q-1 ") and petitioner Jose Bernardo was arrested at midnight of the same day and detained from November 10, 1973 at the Office of the N.B.I. at Dipolog City (Annex "R" to petition); chanrobles virtual law library

(15) Also on November 7, 1973, the petitioner, thru counsel, filed an urgent motion to quash admission of the information and the warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 1103 (Annex "S" to petition) questioning the jurisdiction of the court (respondent judge) to admit the information as the prosecuting fiscal had no authority to file it on the grounds that the case was civil in nature; that it had been previously dismissed after the complainant Olvis accepted payment of his claims plus interest; chanrobles virtual law library

(16) On November 8, 1973,respondent judge denied the urgent notice to quash, hence an urgent motion for reconsideration (Annex "U" to petition) was filed by petitioner on November 10, 1973, reiterating the grounds in the main motion and alleging clear abuse of discretion when the respondent court accepted the information because the acts complained of were merely civil in nature and did not constitute an offense; chanrobles virtual law library

(17) On November 10, 1973, respondent judge issued an order (Annex "V" to petition) denying the said urgent motion for reconsideration; chanrobles virtual law library

(18) On November 19, 1973, petitioners filed an urgent motion to admit to and fix bail (Annex "W" to petition), alleging that under Sec. 18 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution they are entitled to bail as a matter of right as they are charged with simple estafa and that their case does not fall under the provisions of General Order No. 29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General Order No. 2, dated September 30, 1972, which denies bail to persons charged with swindling and other deceits as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revise Penal Code, in large scale; chanrobles virtual law library

(19) On November 20, 1973, the respondent judge issued an order (Annex "X" to petition) commanding that a copy of the aforementioned motion be sent to the Fifth RECAD Zamboanga City thru the Provincial Commander, 463 rd P.C. in accordance with Defense Order No. 739, dated January 25, 1973, and set the hearing of the urgent motion for December 12, 1973; chanrobles virtual law library

(20) The respondent judge acted favorably to petitioners' urgent motion to admit and fix bail, fixed the bail bond for provisional release of the petitioners at P3,000 each, on December 12, 1973 (Annex "1" to Answer),

It should be noted that in its resolution of December 3, 1979, this Court ordered the respondent Judge to admit both petitioners to bail in the amount of P3,000.00 each. The order of respondent Judge of December 12, 1973 thus came late. Although late, however, it rendered the issue of whether or not petitioners are entitled to bail because they were merely charged with simple estafa and they did not fall under the provisions of General Order No. 29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General Order No. 2, dated September 30, 1972, moot and academic.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only issues left for Us to resolve then are whether or not the respondent fiscal acted in grave abuse of discretion in filing the information for estafa against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1103, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga del Norte, notwithstanding his awareness of the circumstances that resulted in the dismissal of the same case during the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, in Criminal Case No. 1345; and whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in admitting and giving due course to the information filed against petitioners for estafa in Criminal Case No. 1103, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga del Norte, although he was made aware of the circumtances leading to the filing of said information.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A close scrutiny of the original complaint and the supporting affidavit of complainant Anacleto Q. Olvis (Annexes "A" and "A-1" to petition) filed with the Municipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, in Criminal Case No. 1345, already raises a doubt as to real nature of the transactions entered into between the petitioners and the complainants, from the point of view of whether the claimed sum of P9,008.13 were given as loans to the petitioners to be paid by the copra produce of the petitioners' lands or if the sum of money was entrusted by complainants to petitioners for the purpose of buying copra to be delivered to the complainants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

But this doubt disappeared after complainant Anacleto Q. Olvis accepted payment of the claimed sum of P9,008.13 plus an interest of P1,080.00. Clearly the relationship between complainant and petitioner was that of creditor and debtors and the transaction was civil in nature, not criminal. This conclusion becomes inconvertible in the light of the receipts signed by petitioners when they received the sums of money from the complainant on various occasions, the said receipts bearing the title "Promissory Note" and its contents clearly spelling out that petitioners received loans from complainant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent fiscal erred in filing Criminal Case No.1103, considering the antecedents of the case and the documentary evidence involved. Wittingly or unwittingly, by his official acts, he caused grave prejudice and injustice to petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order that they may properly fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice. It should be realized, however, that when a man is haled to court on a criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his family as well. Therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the information in court. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent judge erred in admitting and giving due course to the information, considering that he was made aware of the circumstances leading to the firing of said information. But his graver error is in issuing a warrant of arrest without a recommendation for bail for clearly the charges contained in Criminal Case No. 1103 did not fall within the purview of General Order No. 2 dated September 30, 1972 as amended by General Order No. 29 dated April 13, 1973. The right to bail is a constitutional right. Its denial to an accused is allowed only in rare cases. Respondent judge would do well to examine more carefully the laws and jurisprudence on the right to bail before denying the same.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the orders dated November 8, 1973 and November 10, 1973, of the respondent judge are hereby reversed and set aside. Both respondents are hereby ordered to desist from further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1103, entitled "People vs. Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico Bernardo; pending in respondent court, and to dismiss said case, without pronouncement as to costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice who is hereby directed to look into the official actuations of Special Counsel Wilfredo G. Guantero and to take whatever course of action may be proper in the premises, and to inform this Court of the action so taken.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

* George Washington

** Mr. Justice Antonio P. Barredo is on leave.