G.R. No. L-33628. December 29, 1987
BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, SANTIAGO EISMA, MIRUFO CELERIAN, JOSE SAYSON, CESAR TABILIRAN, AND MAXIMO ADLAWAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE MELQUIADES B. SUCALDITO, RUFINO LABANG, MENE…
SARMIENTO, J.:
The petitioner, then Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur and a candidate for
reelection in the local elections of 1971, seeks injunctive relief in two
separate petitions, to enjoin further proceedings in Criminal Cases No. CCC
XVI-4-ZDS, CCC XVI-6-ZDS, and CCC XVI-8-ZDS of the then Circuit Criminal Court
sitting in Pagadian City, as well as I.S. Nos. 1-70,
2-71, 4-71, 5-71, 6-71, and 7-71 of the respondent Fiscal’s
office of the said city, all in the nature of prosecutions for violation of
certain provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act
No. 3019) and various provisions of the Revised Penal Code, commenced by the
respondent Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc.
On June 16, 1971
and October 8, 1971,
respectively, we issued temporary restraining orders directing the respondents
(in both petitions) to desist from further proceedings in the cases in question
until further orders from the Court. At
the same time, we gave due course to the petitions and accordingly, required
the respondents to answer.
The petitions raise pure question of law. The facts are hence, undisputed.
On September 26, 1970, the private respondent Anti-Graft League
of the Philippines, Inc., filed a complaint with the respondent City Fiscal,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 1-70 thereof, for violation of the provisions of
the Anti-Graft Law as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as
follows:
xxx xxx xxx
SPECIFICATION NO. I ?
That on or about October 10, 1969, above-named respondents,
conspiring and confabulating together, allegedly conducted a bidding for the
supply of gravel and sand for the Province of Zamboanga
del Sur; that it was made to appear that Tabiliran Trucking Company won the bidding; that,
thereafter, the award and contract pursuant to the said simulated bidding were
effected and executed in favor of Tabiliran Trucking
Company; that, in truth and in fact, the said bidding was really simulated and
the papers on the same were falsified to favor Tabiliran
Trucking Company, represented by the private secretary of respondent Bienvenido Ebarle, formerly confidential
secretary of the latter; that said awardee was given
wholly unwarranted advantage and preference by means of manifest partiality;
that respondent officials are hereby also charged with interest for personal
gain for approving said award which was manifestly irregular and grossly
unlawful because the same was facilitated and committed by means of
falsification of official documents.
SPECIFICATION NO. II
That after the aforecited award and
contract, Tabiliran Trucking Company, represented by
respondent Cesar Tabiliran, attempted to collect
advances under his trucking contract in the under his trucking contract in the
amount of P4,823.95 under PTA No. 3654; that the same was not passed in audit
by the Provincial Auditor in view of the then subsisting contract with Teoson Trucking Company; which was to expire on November 2,
1969; that nevertheless the said amount was paid and it was made to appear that
it was collected by Teoson Trucking Company, although
there was nothing due from the latter and the voucher was never indorsed or
signed by the operator of Teoson Trucking; and that
in facilitating and consummating the aforecited
collection, respondent officials, hereinabove cited, conspired and connived to
the great prejudice and damage of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Sur.[1]
xxx xxx xxx
On the same date, the private respondent commenced Criminal Case
No. 2-71 of the respondent City Fiscal, another proceeding for violation of
Republic Act No. 3019 as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about April 8, 1970, a bidding was held for the
construction of the right wing portion of the Capitol Building of the Province
of Zamboanga del Sur, by
the Bidding Committee composed of respondents cited hereinabove; that the said
building was maliciously manipulated so as to give wholly unwarranted advantage
and preference in favor of the supposed winning bidder, Codeniera
Construction, allegedly owned and managed by Wenceslao
Codeniera, brother-in-law of the wife of respondent Bienvenido Ebarle; that
respondent official is interested for personal gain because he is responsible
for the approval of the manifestly irregular and unlawful award and contract aforecited; and that, furthermore, respondent, being a
Member of the Bidding Committee, also violated Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code, by making it appear in the very abstract of bids that another interested
bidder, was not interested in the bidding, when in truth and in fact, it was not
so.[2]
xxx xxx xxx
On January 26, 1971,
the private respondent instituted I.S. No. 4-71 of the respondent Fiscal, a
prosecution for violation of Articles 182, 183, and 318 of the Revised Penal
Code, as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about April 4, 1967,
in Pagadian
City, said respondent testified
falsely under oath in Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC CAD REC.
NO. N-468, for registration of title to Lot No.
2545 in particular;
That respondent BIENVENIDO EBARLE testified falsely under oath
during the hearing and reception of evidence that he acquired said lot by
purchase from a certain Brigido Sanchez and that he
is the owner, when in truth and in fact Lot 2545 had been previously acquired
and is owned by the Provincial Government of Zamboanga
del Sur, where the provincial jail building is now
located.
2. That aforesaid deceit, false testimony and
untruthful statement of respondent in said Cadastral case were made knowingly
to the great damage and prejudice of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Sur in violation of
aforecited provisions of the Revised Penal Code.[3]
On February 10, 1971,
finally, the private respondent filed a complaint, docketed as I.S. No. 5-71 of
the respondent Fiscal, an action for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and
Articles 171 and 213 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
We hereby respectfully charge the above-named respondents for
violation of Sec. 3, R. A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Articles 171 and 213, Revised Penal Code and the rules
and regulations of public bidding, committed as follows:
1. That on June 16, 1970, without publication,
respondents conducted the so-called “bidding” for the supply of
gravel and sand for the province of Zamboanga del Sur; that said respondents, without any valid or legal
ground, did not include or even open the bid of one Jesus Teoson
that was seasonably submitted, despite the fact that he is a registered duly
qualified operator of “Teoson Trucking
Service”, and notwithstanding his compliance with all the rules and
requirements on public bidding; that, instead, aforecited
respondents illegally and irregularly awarded said contract to Cesar Tabiliran, an associate of respondent Governor Bienvenido Ebarle; and
2. That in truth and in fact, aforesaid
“bidding” was really simulated and papers were falsified or otherwise
“doctored” to favor respondent Cesar Tabiliran
thereby giving him wholly unwarranted advantage, preference and benefits by
means of manifest partiality; and that there is a statutory presumption of
interest for personal gain because the transaction and award were manifestly
irregular and contrary to applicable law, rules and regulations.[4]
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner initially moved to dismiss the aforesaid
preliminary investigations, but the same having been denied, he went to the
respondent Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, the Honorable Melquiades Sucaldito presiding, on prohibition and mandamus
(Special Case No. 1000) praying at the same time, for a writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin further proceedings therein. The court granted preliminary injunctive
relief (restraining order) for which the Anti-Graft League filed a motion to
have the restraining order lifted and to have the petition itself dismissed.
On May 14, 1971,
the respondent, Judge Sucaldito, handed down the
first of the two challenged orders, granting Anti-Graft League’s motion and
dismissing Special Case No. 1000.
On June 11, 1971,
the petitioner came to this Court on certiorari with prayer for a
temporary restraining order (G.R. No. 33628).
As we said, we issued a temporary restraining order on June 16, 1971.
Meanwhile, and in what would begin yet another series of criminal
prosecutions, the private respondent, on April 26, 1971, filed three
complaints, subsequently docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. CCC XVI-4-ZDS, CCC
XVI-6-ZDS, and CCC XVI-8-ZDS of the Circuit Criminal Court of Pagadian City, for violation of various provisions of the
Anti-Graft Law as well as Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:
xxx xxx xx
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A.
EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously extended
and gave ELIZABETH EBARLE MONTESCLAROS, daughter of his brother, his relative
by consanguinity within the third degree, and appointment as Private Secretary
in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, although he well know that the latter is
related with him within the third degree by consanguinity.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[5]
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A.
EBARLE, then and there unlawfuly and feloniously made
untruthful statements in a narration of facts by accomplishing and issuing a
certificate, to wit:
“c. That the provisions of law and rules on
promotion, seniority and nepotism have been observed.”
required by law in such cases, in support
of the appointment he extended to ELIZABETH EBARLE-MONTESCLAROS, as Private
Secretary in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, although he well know that the latter is
related with him within the third degree of consanguinity.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about December
18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and there unlawfully and feloniously
made untruthful statements in a narration of facts by accomplishing and issuing
a certificate, to wit:
“c. That the provisions of law and rules on
promotion, seniority and nepotism have been observed.”
required by law in such cases, in support of
the appointment he extended to TERESITO MONTESCLAROS, husband of his niece
Elizabeth Ebarle, as Motor Pool Dispatcher, Office of
the Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur, although he well knew that the latter is related with
him within the third degree affinity.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
xxx xxx xxx
Subsequently, on August
23, 1971, the private respondent brought I.S. No. 6-71 of the
respondent Pagadian City Fiscal against the
petitioner, still another proceeding for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
First Count:
That on or about December 1, 1969, in Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extended and gave MARIO EBARLE, son of his brother, his relative by
consanguinity within the third degree, an appointment as SECURITY GUARD in the
Office of the Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur although he well knew that the latter is related with
him in the third degree by consanguinity and is not qualified under the Civil
Service Law.
Second Count:
That in January, 1970, at Pagadian City,
Gov. BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE replaced JOHNNY ABABON who was then the
incumbent Motor Pool Dispatcher in the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur with his
nephew-in-law TERESITO MONTESCLAROS relative by affinity within the third Civil
degree, in violation of the Civil Service Law, this knowingly causing undue
injury in the discharge of his administrative function through manifest
partiality against said complaining employee.
Third Count:
That on or about December 18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extended and gave ELIZABETH EBARLE MONSTESCLAROS, daughter of his
brother, his relative by consanguinity within the third degree, an appointment
as Private Secretary in the Office of the Provincial Governor of Zambonga del Sur, although he
well know that the latter is related with him within the third degree of
consanguinity, and said appointment is in violation of the Civil Service Law.
Fourth Count:
That on or about January 22, 1970, in Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extended and gave ZACARIAS UGSOD, JR., son of the younger sister of
Governor Ebarle, his relative by consanguinity within
the third degree, an appointment as Architectural Draftsman in the Office of
the Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur although he well know that the latter is related with
him in the third degree of consanguinity.
Fifth Count:
That on February 5, 1970, at Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extended and gave TERESITO MONTESCLAROS, husband of his niece
ELIZABETH EBARLE, his relative by affinity within the third degree, an
appointment as Motor Pool Dispatcher, Office of the Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur, although he
well knew then that the latter was not qualified to such appointment as it was
in violation of the Civil Service Law, thereby knowingly granting and giving
unwarranted advantage and preference in the discharge of his administrative
function through manifest partiality.
II. SPECIFICATION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 4 (b), R.A. 3019
That on August 19, 1967, respondent BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Governor
of Zamboanga del Sur,
taking advantage of his position, caused, persuaded, induced, or influence the
Presiding Judge to perform irregular and felonious act in violation of
applicable law or constituting an offense into awarding and decreeing Lot 2545
of the Pagadian Public Lands subdivision to him who,
according to the records of the case, failed to establish his rights of
ownership pursuant to the provisions of the Land Registration Law and the
Public Land Act, it appearing that the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Sur as and is a
claimant and in adverse possession of Lot 2545 whereon the Provincial Jail
Building thereon still stands.
III. SPECIFICATION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 171 (4), REVISED PENAL
CODE:
First Count:
That on or about December
18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then
and there unlawfully and feloniously made untruthful statement in a narration
of facts by accomplishing and issuing a certificate, to wit:
“c. That the provisions of law and rules on
promotion, seniority and nepotism have been observed.”
required by law in such cases, in support
of the appointment he extended to TERESITO MONTESCLAROS, husband of his niece
ELIZABETH EBARLE, as Motor Pool Dispatcher, Office of the Provincial Engineer
of Zamboanga del Sur,
although he well knew that the latter is related with him within the third
degree of affinity and is in violation of the Civil Service Law.
Second Count:
That on or about December
18, 1969, in Pagadian
City, BIEVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and
there unlawfully and feloniously made untruthful statements a certificate, to
wit:
“c. That the provisions of the law and rules on
promotion, seniority and nepotism have been observed.”
required by law in
such cases, in support of the appointment he extended to ELIZABETH
EBARLE-MONTESCLAROS, as Private Secretary in the Office of the Provincial
Governor of Zamboanga del Sur,
although he well knew that the latter is related with him within the third
degree of consanguinity, and is in violation of the Civil Service Law.
CONTRARY to aforecited
laws.[8]
xxx xxx xxx
On September 21, 1971,
the private respondent instituted I.S. No. 7-71 of the said City Fiscal, again
charging the petitioner with further violations of Republic Act No. 3019 thus:
xxx xxx xxx
First Count:
That on or about December 2, 1969, in Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extend and give unwarranted benefits and privileges BONINDA EBARLE,
wife of his brother Bertuldo Ebarle,
the former being his relative by affinity within the second civil degree, an
appointment as LABORATORY TECHNICIAN in Pagadian
City, although he well knew that the latter is related to him in the second
degree by affinity and is not qualified under the Civil Service Law.
Second Count:
That on or about January 1, 1970, at Pagadian
City, BIEVENIDO EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extend and give unwarranted benefits and privileges JESUS EBARLE,
nephew of said respondent, an appointment as DRIVER of the Provincial
Engineer’s Office, Pagadian City, although he well
knew that Jesus Ebarle is related to him within the
third civil degree by consanguinity and is not qualified under the Civil
Service Law.
Third Count:
That on or about November 1, 1969, at Pagadian
City, BIENVENIDO EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously extend and give unwarranted benefits and privileges PHENINA
CODINERA, sister-in-law of said respondent, an appointment as CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT
in the Office of the Provincial Governor, Pagadian
City, although he well knew that Phenina Codinera is related to him in the second civil degree of
consanguinity and is not qualified under the Civil Service Law.
ALL CONTRARY TO
AFORECITED LAW.
Please give due course to the above complaint and please set the
case for immediate preliminary investigation pursuant to the First Indorsement dated August 27, 1971 of the Secretary of
Justice, and in the paramount interest of good government.[9]
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner thereafter went to the respondent Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga del Sur,
the Honorable Asaali Isnani
presiding, on a special civil action (Special Civil Case No. 1048) for
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction. The respondent Court issued a restraining
order. The respondent Anti-Graft League
moved to have the same lifted and the case itself dismissed.
On September 27, 1971,
Judge Isnani issued an order, dismissing the case.
On October 6, 1971,
the petitioner instituted G.R. No. 34162 of this Court, a special civil action
for certiorari with preliminary injunction. As earlier noted, we, on October 8, 1971, stayed the implementation of
dismissal order.
Subsequently, we consolidated both petitions and considered the same
submitted for decision.
Principally, the petitioner relies (in both petitions) on the
failure of the respondents City Fiscal and the Anti-Graft League to comply with
the provisions of Executive Order No. 264, “OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH COMMISSION
OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED,”[10]
preliminary to their criminal recourses.
At the same time, he assails the standing of the respondent Anti-Graft
League to commence the series of prosecutions below (G.R. No. 33628). He likewise contends that the respondent
Fiscal (in G.R. No. 34162), in giving due course to the complaints
notwithstanding the restraining order we had issued (in G.R. No. 33628), which
he claims applies as well thereto, committed a grave abuse of discretion. He likewise submits that the prosecutions in
question are politically motivated, initiated by his rivals, he being, as we
said, a candidate for reelection as Governor of Zamboanga
del Sur.
We dismiss these petitions.
The petitioner’s reliance upon the provisions of Executive Order
No. 264 has no merit. We reproduce the
Order in toto:
MALACANANG
RESIDENCE OF THE
PRESIDENT
OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 264
OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE
BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH
COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED.
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the general public be duly informed
or reminded of the procedure provided by law and regulations by which
complaints against public officials and employees should be presented and
prosecuted;
WHEREAS, actions on complaints are at times delayed because of the
failure to observe the formal requisites therefor, to
indicate with sufficient clearness and particularity the charges or offenses
being aired or denounced, and to file the complaint with the proper office or
authority;
WHEREAS, without in any way curtailing the constitutional guarantee
of freedom of expression, the Administration believes that many complaints or
grievances could be resolved at the lower levels of government if only the
provisions of law and regulations on the matter are duly observed by the
parties concerned; and
WHEREAS, while all sorts of officials misconduct should be
eliminated and punished, it is equally compelling that public officials and
employees be given opportunity afforded them by the constitution and law to
defend themselves in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law and regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines,
by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
1. Complaints against public officials and
employees shall be in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the complainants,
describing in sufficient detail and particularity the acts or conduct
complained of, instead of generalizations.
2. Complaints against presidential appointees
shall be filed with the Office of the President or the Department Head having
direct supervision or control over the official involved.
3. Those against subordinate officials and
employees shall be lodged with the proper department or agency head.
4. Those against elective local officials shall
be filed with the Office of the President in case of provincial and city
officials, with the provincial governor or board secretary in case of municipal
officials, and with the municipal or city mayor or secretary in case of barrio
officials.
5. Those against members of police forces shall
be filed with the corresponding local board of investigators headed by the city
or municipal treasurer, except in the case of those appointed by the President
which should be filed with the Office of the President.
6. Complaints against public officials and
employees shall be promptly acted upon and disposed of by the officials or
authorities concerned in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations so that
the erring officials or employees can be soonest removed or otherwise
disciplined and the innocent, exonerated or vindicated in like manner, and to
the end also that other remedies, including court action, may be pursued
forthwith by the interested parties after administrative remedies shall have
been exhausted.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th
day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy.
(Sgd.)
FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) ALEJANDRO MELCHOR
Executive Secretary[11]
It is plain from the very wordings of the Order that it has exclusive
application to administrative, not criminal, complaints. The Order itself shows why.
The very title speaks of “COMMISSION OF
IRREGULARITIES.” There is no mention, not even by implication, of criminal
“offenses,” that is to say, “crimes.” While “crimes”
amount to “irregularities,” the Executive Order could have very well
referred to the more specific term had it intended to make itself applicable thereto.
The first perambulatory clause states the necessity for informing
the public “of the procedure provided by law and regulations by which
complaints against public officials and employees should be presented and
prosecuted.”[12]
To our mind, the “procedure provided by law and regulations” referred
to pertains to existing procedural rules with respect to the presentation of
administrative charges against erring government officials. And in fact, the aforequoted
paragraphs are but restatements thereof.
That presidential appointees are subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the President, for instance, is a reecho of the long-standing
doctrine that the President exercises the power of control over his appointees.[13]
Paragraph 3, on the other hand, regarding subordinate officials, is a mere
reiteration of Section 33 of Republic Act No. 2260, the Civil Service Act (of
1959) then in force, placing jurisdiction upon “the proper Head of
Department, the chief of a bureau or office”[14]
to investigate and decide on matters involving disciplinary action.
Paragraph 4, which refers to complaints filed against elective
local officials, reiterates, on the other hand, the Decentralization Act of
1967, providing that “charges against any elective provincial and city
officials shall be preferred before the President of the Philippines; against
any elective municipal official before the provincial governor or the secretary
of the provincial board concerned; and against any elective barrio official
before the municipal or secretary concerned.”[15]
Paragraph 5, meanwhile, is a reproduction of the provisions of
the Police Act of 1966, vesting upon a “Board of Investigators”[16]
the jurisdiction to try and decide complaints against members of the Philippine
police.
Clearly, the Executive Order simply consolidates these existing
rules and streamlines the administrative apparatus in the matter of complaints
against public officials. Furthermore,
the fact is that there is no reference therein to judicial or pre-judicial
(like a preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal) recourse, not because
it makes such a resort a secondary measure, but because it does not intend to
serve as a condition precedent to, much less supplant, such a court resort.
To be sure, there is mention therein of “court action[s] [being] pursued forthwith by the interested parties,”[17]
but that does not, so we hold, cover proceedings such as criminal actions,
which do not require a prior administrative course of action. It will indeed be noted that the term is
closely shadowed by the qualification, “after administrative remedies
shall have been exhausted,”[18]
which suggests civil suits subject to previous administrative action.
It is moreover significant that the Executive Order in question
makes specific reference to “erring officials or employees x x x removed or otherwise
vindicated.”[19] If
it were intended to apply to criminal prosecutions, it would have employed such
technical terms as “accused,” “convicted”, or
“acquitted”. While this is not
necessarily a controlling parameter for all cases, it is here material in
construing the intent of the measure.
What is even more compelling is the
Constitutional implications if the petitioner’s arguments were accepted. For Executive Order No. 264
was promulgated under the 1935 Constitution in which legislative power was
vested exclusively in Congress.
The regime of Presidential lawmaking was to usher in yet some seven
years later. If we were to consider the
Executive Order law, we would be forced to say that it is an amendment to
Republic Act No. 5180, the law on preliminary investigations then in effect, a
situation that would give rise to a Constitutional anomaly. We cannot accordingly countenance such a
view.
The challenge the petitioner presents against the personality of
the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines
to bring suit is equally without merit.
That the Anti-Graft League is not an “offended party” within
the meaning of Section 2, Rule 110, of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure), cannot abate the complaints in question.
A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the
fiscal need not be filed by the “offended party.” The rule has been
that, unless the offense subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de
oficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary
investigation purposes, by any competent person.[20]
The “complaint” referred to in the Rule 110 contemplates one filed in
court, not with the fiscal. In the that case, the proceeding must be started by the
aggrieved party himself.[21]
For as a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by
complaint or information, both of which are filed in court. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by
the offended party; with respect to an information, it
is the fiscal who files it. But a
“complaint” filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be
filed by any person.
The next question is whether or not the temporary restraining
order we issued in G.R. No. 33628 embraced as well the complaint subject of
G.R. No. 34162.
It is noteworthy that the charges levelled
against the petitioner — whether in G.R. No. 33628 or 34162 — refer
invariably to violations of the Anti-Graft law or the Revised Penal Code. That does not, however, make such charges
identical to one another.
The complaints involved in G.R. No. 34162 are, in general,
nepotism under Sections 3(c) and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019; exerting
influence upon the presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur to award a
certain parcel of land in his favor, over which the provincial government
itself lays claims, contrary to the provisions of Section 4(b) of Republic Act
No. 3019; and making untruthful statements in the certificates of appointment
of certain employees in his office. On
the other hand, the complaints subject matter of G.R. No. 33628 involve charges
of simulating bids for the supply of gravel and sand for certain public works
projects, in breach of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft statute; manipulating bids
with respect to the construction of the capitol building; testifying falsely in
connection with Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC Cad. Rec.
N-468, in which the petitioner alleged that he was the owner of a piece of
land, in violation of Articles 182, 183, and 318 of the Revised Penal Code; and
simulating bids for the supply of gravel and sand in connection with another
public works project.
It is clear that the twin sets of complaints are characterized by
major differences. When, therefore, we
restrained further proceedings in I.S. Nos. 1-71, 2-71, and 4-71, subject of
G.R. No. 33628, we did not consequently stay the proceedings in CCC XVI-4-ZDS,
CCC XVI-6-ZDS, CCC XVI-8-ZDS, and I.S. Nos. 6-71 and 7-71, the same proceedings
we did restrain in G.R. No. 34162.
This brings us to the last issue:
whether or not the complaints in question are tainted with a political color.
It is not our business to resolve complaints the disposition of
which belongs to another agency, in this case, the respondent Fiscal. But more than that, and as a general rule,
injunction does not lie to enjoin criminal prosecutions.[22]
The rule is subject to exceptions, to wit:
(1) for the orderly administration of justice; (2) to prevent the use of
the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner; (3) to avoid
multiplicity of actions; (4) to afford adequate protection to constitutional
rights; and (5) because the statute relied on is constitutionally infirm or
otherwise void.[23]
We cannot perceive any of the exceptions applicable here. The petitioner cries foul, in a manner of
speaking, with respect to the deluge of complaints commenced by the private
respondent below, but whether or not they were filed for harassment purposes is
a question we are not in a position to decide.
The proper venue, we believe, for the petitioner’s plaints
is precisely in the preliminary investigations he wishes blocked here.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. The temporary restraining orders are LIFTED
and SET ASIDE. Costs
against the petitioner.
It is so ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Paras, and
Padilla, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, G.R. No. 33628, 40-41.
[2] Id., 42.
[3] Id., 43.
[4] Id.,
45-46.
[5] Rollo,
G.R. No. 34162, 98 (Crim. Case No. CCC XVI-4-ZDS).
[6] Id., 99 (Crim. Case No. CCC XVI-6-ZDS).
[7] Id., 100 (Crim. Case No. CCC XVI-8-ZDS).
[8] Id.,
32-35.
[9] Id.,
94-95.
[10] Exec. Order No. 264 (1970), 66 O.G. 9344
(Oct., 1970).
[11] Supra,
9394-9395.
[12] Supra, 9394.
[13] See supra, par. 2; Ang-Angco
v. Castillo, No. L-17169, November 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 619 (1963).
[14]
Rep. Act No. 2260, sec. 33 (1959)
[15] Rep. Act No. 5185, sec. 5 (1967).
[16] Rep. Act No. 4864, sec. 15 (1966).
[17] Supra, par. 6.
[18] Supra.
[19] Supra.
[20] Hernandez v. Albano, No.
L-17081, May 31, 1961, 2
SCRA 607 (1961)
[21] Supra.
[22] Asutilla v.
Philippine National Bank, No. L-51354, January 15, 1986, 141 SCRA 40 (1986); Guingona, Jr. v.
City Fiscal of Manila, No. L-60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA 577 (1984).
[23] Supra.