G.R. No. L-8917. December 24, 1956

Yolanda E. Sarmiento,  the  complainant-appellant, filed on October 8, 1954 with the Justice  of  the Peace  Court of Lilio, Laguna, a  complaint for  serious illegal detention against  Ernesto Natoza and John Doe.  Thereupon  the Justice  of the Peace conducted the corresponding investigation in accordance with  Sec. 7, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and  subsequently issued the warrant of arrest against the  accused.   After the arrest the case was set for October  23, 1954 for the formal preliminary investigation and, to that affect, notices were issued to  the accused Ernesto  Natoza  and  to  the complainant and  her witnesses.  On that date, Natoza entered a formal waiver of his right to a  preliminary investigation and at the same time asked that the case be remanded to the Court of First Instance of Lacuna.  Accordingly, the record of the case was sent to the Court of First Instance of Laguna where it was docketed as Criminal Case  No. 16137.  On November  6,  1954 the  assistant provincial fiscal of Laguna reinvestigated the case upon previous notification  to the complainant-appellant and her counsel and the accused to be present there.  Appellant and  her counsel failed, however, to appear at the reinvestigation, while the accused did and presented, evidence in his behalf; and the assistant provincial fiscal  of Laguna, after considering the evidence for the complainant formerly presented before the Justice of the  Peace of Lilio and  that adduced by the accused at the reinvestigation, filed  a motion for dismissal, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:

“A reinvestigation of this case was conducted by the.Office of the Provincial Fiscal on November 6, 1954, notice  thereof having been given to the private prosecutor; and at such hearing the accused Ernesto  Natoza  offered evidence in  his own behalf.  No  appearance was however  made by  the  offended party or her counsel.  At such  reinvestigation evidence  was  submitted consisting of no less than  five  (5) letters addressed  by  Yolanda  Sarmiento to  the accused  Ernesto Natoza and sufficiently established to be in ‘the handwriting of Yolanda Sarmiento, as reflected by a  comparison with her classroom theme papers submitted also by the defendant. The nature  of these five letters conclusively show an amorous relation between  the  complaint  and  the  accused.  The  profuse  endearing  terms therein negative  the necessity of threat and force that was allegedly employed by the accused on said Yolanda Sarmiento.

“The time and the occasion for the  start of the  alleged ,offense in the premises  of the Lilio  Academy at 9:00 in  the morning in the presence of many spectators likewise make it difficult to sustain the claim of  intimidation or threat.   Testimony has been offered at the reinvestigation by Lina Suiza,  a classmate  of the  offended party, who positively averred that Yolanda Sarmiento was alone when  she boarded the LTB  truck of  her own free will and even entrusted her  books  to said  witness prior  to her departure.  This is corroborated no less by Miss Josefina Virina, a faculty member of the Lilio Academy who boarded the same bua and saw Yolanda Sarmiento take the truck alone and that the accused Ernesto Natoza was already in the LTB bus even  before Yolanda Sarmiento took the same vehicle.  This same witness  stated that  Yolanda Sarmiento sat beside the driver at the left side of the  bus, sitting separately and at some  distance away from the accused.  Throughout the journey from Lilio to San Pablo City there was more than ample opportunity for the offended party to seek help or make an outcry especially under  the circumstances above recited and there was none made by her.  Upon reaching San Pablo City this opportunity could even  be greater for she  had to transfer tar another truck to reach Pila and again no protest was registered or shown to have  been made.  The  conduct of these  two young people upon their arrival at Pila as testified,to by  Lilia  Natoza tend strongly to show a simple impulsive adventure  of two  young people nearly enough to an elopement which was however frustrated by the efforts of the guardian aunt of the Offended party, ‘ All the foregoing circumstanees supported by evidence both oral and documentary most strongly refute the uncorroborated charge  of illegal detention and there is so evidence that any other criminal offense has been committed.”

On November 9, 1954, this motion was granted by the Court of First  Instance  of Laguna.  On  .November 20, 1954, the complainant’s  counsel  filed  a motion  for reconsideration of the order of dismissal on the ground that the  complainant-appellant and her witness Regina  Sarmiento were not present in the reinvestigation  conducted by the  assistant provincial fiscal of Laguna, alleging that they  were not duly notified  therefor and that  said reinvestigation was unconstitutional and illegal and made without “due process of  law”.  The court denied this motion for reconsideration on November  27,  1954, but,  again,  on December 20, 1954  another petition for reconsideration was filed on the  ground that the  aforementioned reinvestigation of the case done by  the assistant provincial fiscal was contrary to sections 5 and 6, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and in open violation  of the due process clause of our  fundamental  law. Said petition for reconsideration was also denied,  hence the present appeal on  the ground that the lower court erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint and in not holding that the procedure followed in the  reinvestigation conducted by assistant provincial fiscal Alampay was contrary to law  and the Constitution.

Carefully considered, we find no merit in the foregoing contention.  The record does not disclose any abuse on the part of the assistant provincial  fiscal  in  conducting the reinvestigation.  He filed the  motion for  dismissal after weighing the testimonies  of the complainant-appellant and her  witness  Regina Sarmiento, which were  attached to the record of the  case, as  well as the evidence presented by the  accused during the  reinvestigation.  He submitted a well-reasoned  motion for dismissal and the lower court, after carefully examining the motion for dismissal, granted it.  There was, therefore, no abuse either on the part of the provincial  fiscal or  the trial court in acting on the case as they did.   On the other hand, it appears that the issues raised by the appellant in connection with the power o.f the  fiscal to  file the motion for dismissal and the authority of the trial court  to  grant  it  were squarely resolved by this Court in Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 63 Phil. 846, and  in  People vs. Orais and Jimenez,  65  Phil.  744, where it was held  that the provincial fiscal who  finds the evidence in the preliminary investigation as well as that presented to  him insufficient to establish, at least prima fade, the guilt of the accused, has perfect authority  to file  a  motion for dismissal,  and that the  judge who dismissed  the  case, upon motion  of the fiscal on the ground of  insufficient  evidence  to  establish prima fade the guilt of the accused, commits no reversible error.  And this is so because, under Section 4,  Rule 106 of the  Rules of Court, all criminal  actions shall be prosecuted under the  direction and control of the fiscal.

With reference  to appellant’s contention that  the  reinvestigation of the case conducted by the assistant provincial  fiscal  of Laguna  was  illegal and unconstitutional in that it  was done without notice to the complainant or her counsel, we find, in the first place, that, according to the motion for dismissal, the complainant and her counsel were notified of  said reinvestigation but that they  failed to appear thereat, and between complainant’s claim that she was not notified and the fiscal’s contention that notification was duly issued to the complainant  and her counsel’, we are more inclined to believe in the fiscal’s contention, for  the presumption is that the law was obeyed  and official duty was regularly performed.  In the second place, even  without the notification, the  provincial fiscal is clothed with authority to make investigation of the case for the purpose  of satisfying himself whether the  evidence  of record is sufficient for the  filing of  the corresponding information, and if after his investigation he finds that no sufficient  evidence  warrants the prosecution of  the  case, it is within his authority, as prosecuting officer, to file the corresponding  motion to  dismiss which, if granted, cannot be appealed by the offended party who, under the law, has no Tight even to compel  the fiscal or the court, thru mandamus, to proceed with the case  unless there is a clear abuse of discretion on their part, which the record of the  case fails to show.

Wherefore, finding no errors in the order appealed from, the same  is hereby affirmed.

Paras, C J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Felix, JJ., concur.