THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO BERIALES, BENEDICTO CUSTODIO AND PABLITO CUSTODIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

The Court’ s attention has been called to the fact that the
decision in this case has been interpreted in prosecution circles in such
manner as may cause the obstruction of the administra­tion of justice.  Hence, a clarification and a restatement of
some of the principles therein involved are in order.

In this case, which involved a prosecution in the Court of First
Instance, the Court ruled, inter alia, that
the fiscal’s duty to direct and control the
prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the
proceedings; and that evidence presented by the private prosecutor at a
hearing, at which neither the fiscal nor his assistant or duly authorized
special counsel was officially present, cannot be considered as evidence for
the People of the Philippines.  This
pronounce­ment, as can be clearly deduced therefrom,
applies to the trial and prosecution of criminal cases before the Courts of
First Instance, Criminal Circuit Courts, and City Courts (which are provided by
law with their own City Fiscals) only, and not to the municipal courts.

The procedure in the trial of criminal cases before the municipal
courts and City Courts which do not have their own City Fiscals has not in any
way been altered or modified by the
pronouncement in this case.  Under Sec.
2, Rule 110^[1] of the Revised Rules of Court, and in
the light of the ruling in the cases of
P. P. I. vs. Alvarez and P. P. I. vs. Perez, et al.,^[2]
police, constabulary, and other peace or law enforcement officers and private
prosecutors may prosecute criminal cases in the said courts, but this authority
ceases upon actual intervention of the
provincial or City Fiscal or their assistants, or upon the elevation of the case to the Court of First Instance.

Fernando, (Chairman), and
Antonio, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., would like to add that there is no prohibition against the offended
party undertaking prosecution of the case.

Aquino, J., Concurs. It should be noted that the rule in sec. 4, Rule 110 that “
all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal” was taken from U.S.
vs. Despabiladeras,
32 Phil. 442, an adultery case prosecuted in the Court of First Instance, Rule
123 prescribes the procedure in inferior courts. Section 4 of Rule 110 might
have been based on the assumption that criminal cases tried in inferior courts
are appealable to the Court of First Instance, where
a trial de novo is held and where the
fiscal shall take charge of the cause in behalf of the prosecution (Secs. 6 and 7, Rule 123).

^[1]
Sec. 2.  Complaint defined. 
Complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other employee
of the government or governmental institution in charge of the enforcement or
execution of the law violated.

^[2]
74 Phil. 20