JAIME HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER AND APPELLANTS, VS. DELFIN ALBANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Sometime in March, 1959, Congressman Delfin Albano sent to the city fiscal of
Manila two unsworn letters dated March 6 and March 23, 1959 denouncing
petitioner’s interest in the Bicol Electric Co., University of Nueva Caceres,
University of the East, DMG Corporation, and Rural Bank of Nueva Caceres. These
unsworn letters gave rise to the docketing in the office of the city fiscal of
five separate cases charging petitioner with the violation of Article 216 of the
Revised Penal Code, Commonwealth Act No. 626, and Republic Act No. 265.

These five charges were assigned for investigation by the city fiscal to two
of his assistants who thereupon set them for preliminary investigation. At the
initial hearing, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the charges on the ground
that Congressman Delfin Albano is not one of those competent to subscribe to a
complaint under Section 2 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court^[1]. The motion was denied, and so were the two
motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner.

On April 25, 1959, petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of
Manila an action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against respondents
seeking to prohibit them from conducting the preliminary investigation of the
five charges mentioned above on the ground that a complaint filed in the office
of the city fiscal must be sworn to as required by Section 2, Rule 106, of the
Rules of Court, and since Congressman Albano has not sworn to the five charges
he has filed, respondents fiscals were acting in excess of their authority in
conducting the preliminary investigation as above adverted to. The petition for
a writ of preliminary injunction was not acted upon in view of the manifestation
of respondents fiscals that they would suspend their scheduled preliminary
investigation pending determination of the petition for prohibition.

After due hearing, the trial court rendered decision upholding the authority
of respondents fiscals to conduct the preliminary investigation of the charges
filed by Congressman Albano even if they do not conform to the requirement of
Section 2, Rule 106, of the Rules of Court. Consequently, it dismissed the
petition. The appeal taken by petitioner is now before us by virtue of a
certification made by the Court of Appeals.

The main theme of appellant is that the trial court erred in holding that the
complaint contemplated in Section 2 of Rule 106 is the one filed in court and
not the one filed in the office of the city fiscal because it is the one
prepared after the preliminary investigation conducted by said official.

The pertinent provisions which need to be quoted for the purposes of this
case are those which grant to the city fiscal and his assistants the power to
investigate crimes, violations of laws and ordinances in the city, to wit:

“SEC. 38.-B. Duties of the City Fiscal.—The City Fiscal shall be the
chief legal adviser of the city and all offices and departments thereof. * * *
He shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes and violations of the
city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the
city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to criminal prosecutions
enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. (Italics supplied)

“The City Fiscal shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes and
violations of ordinances and have the necessary informations or complaints
prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants may
conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputed witnesses, and
for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses, to appear and testify
under oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of any absent or
recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to the municipal court or
the Court of First Instance. * * *

“SEC. 38.-C. Preliminary investigation of cases cognizable by the Court of
First Instance.—In all cases brought to the Office of the City Fiscal
involving crimes cognizable by the Court of First Instance, where the accused is
not already in the legal custody of the police, no complaint or information
shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a
preliminary investigation, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article one hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: * * *.”
(Republic Act No. 409).

“SEC. 1687. Authority of Fiscal to conduct investigation in criminal
matter.—A provincial fiscal shall have authority to conduct investigation
into the matter of any crime or misdemeanor and have the necessary information
or complaint prepared or made against persons charged with the commission of the
same. * * *” (Revised Administrative Code).

As may be seen from the foregoing provisions, the city fiscal and his
assistants, in the same manner as provincial fiscals, are vested with the power
and authority to investigate all charges of crimes and violations of ordinances
irrespective of whether the person who complains is the offended party or not.
Said provisions do not require that a sworn written complaint be first filed
before the city fiscal in order that he may investigate the case complained of,
except of course if the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio, or is private in nature, where the law requires that it be started
by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, or when it pertains to those
cases which need to be endorsed by specified public officers as required in
Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. The charges involved in these cases
do not come within the two classes of offenses above referred to, and therefore
they do not need to be initiated by a sworn complaint in order that they may be
investigated by the city fiscal. In fact, it has always been the practice in the
City of Manila since time immemorial to investigate charges involving the
commission of crimes or violations of law without the need of a previous
complaint under oath filed in the office of the city fiscal, and this practice
has been endorsed by this Court in several decisions, among which we quote the
following:

“The proceedings in the case at bar rest upon an information filed by the
public prosecuting officer, and there can be no question as to the authority of
such officers to institute and maintain a criminal action without regard to the
intervention of the private persons who may have been directly injured by the
commission of the alleged offense, excepting prosecutions for the offenses
formerly designated private offenses which by express provision of law can only
be instituted at the instance of the offended party.” (U.S. vs. Barreto,
36 Phil., 204, 208-209)

“Section 2465 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth
Act No. 537, provides that ‘The Fiscal of the city shall cause to be
investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances,
and have the necessary informations or complaints prepared or made against the
person accused.’ Section 2474 of the Revised Administrative Code (Manila
Charter) pertinently provides that in cases triable only in the Court of First
Instance the defendant shall not be entitled as of right to a preliminary
examination in any case where the fiscal of the city, after a due investigation
of the facts, shall have presented an information against him in proper form.’
The power is reaffirmed—and not taken away—by section 2 Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. * * *

*             *             *             *             *       
     *             *

“The framers of the Rules could not have intended to brush aside these
lessons of experience and to tear down an institution recognized by law and
decision and sanctioned by years of settled practice. They could not have
failed to keep intact an effective machinery in the administration of criminal
justice, as expeditious and simple as any reform they have infused into the new
Rules. * * *” (Hashim vs. Boncan, et al., 71 Phil., 216, 224-225; See
also Espiritu vs. De la Rosa, 78 Phil., 827; Italics
supplied.)

The contention that the trial court erred in ruling that the complaint
contemplated in Section 2, Rule 106 is the one filed in court because it is the
one prepared after the preliminary investigation is conducted by the prosecuting
official is untenable. This ruling is but a sequel to our interpretation above
set out to the effect that, with the exception of the two cases already
mentioned, a sworn written complaint is not necessary to be filed in the office
of the fiscal before he can start the required preliminary investigation
preparatory to the filing of a formal charge. The trial judge, Hon. Jesus
Y. Perez, in a well-written opinion, made a clear exposition of the reasons
supporting his ruling which constitute the best refutation of the error
attributed to him by appellant. Portions of said opinion we are herein quoting
with approval:

“It is contended by the petitioner that all complaints filed with the Office
of the City Fiscal should conform with the definition of ‘complaint’ under
Section 2, Rule 106 which states as follows:

“‘The term complaint is defined as 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.’

“In support of his stand, the petitioner cites the following pronouncement of
the Supreme Court in Espiritu vs. De la Rosa, 78 Phil., 829) to wit:

“It is not correct to say that a complaint, as defined in Section 2, Rule
106, must be filed with a court of justice, because said section which provides
that ‘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,” does not require that it be filed with a court of justice.
Unlike Section 3 of said rule which requires an information to be “filed with
the court”, a complaint need not necessarily be filed with the court. Hence it
may be laid before the City Fiscal for investigation.’

“A thorough perusal of the above pronouncement shows that it is authority
only for the proposition that if a sworn written statement charging a person of
an offense is filed with the City Fiscal for purposes of investigation, such
written charge is also deemed a complaint within the definition of complaint in
Section 2 of Rule 106. Of course, it is a complaint filed with the Fiscal for
what other denomination could be given to such a sworn charge? But, there is
nothing in the language of the Supreme Court from which it can be inferred that
the charge filed with the fiscal for purposes of preliminary investigation must,
in all cases, conform to the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2
of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. Besides, that the complaint contemplated in
Section 2, Rule 106 is one that starts the judicial proceeding is clarified in
the case of People vs. Santos, et al., 101 Phil., Phil., 798 wherein the
Supreme Court, construing the provision of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732
which provides that ‘A provincial fiscal shall have authority to conduct
preliminary investigation into the matter of any crime or misdemeanor and have
the necessary information or complaint prepared or made against persons charged
with the commission of the crime’ hold that the complaint mentioned in this
provision of law is precisely what is defined and mentioned in the Rules of
Court and the Penal Code‘. The complaint contemplated in Section 2 of Rule
106 is hence the one filed in court because it is the one prepared after the
preliminary investigation is held under Republic Act No. 732. This rule is
applicable to cases under investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila because
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732 abovequoted and paragraph two of Section 38-B
of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila are substantially the same, the
latter providing that ‘The City Fiscal shall cause to be investigated all
charges of crimes and violations of ordinances and have the necessary
informations or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused’. Since
the complaint referred to in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 732, which is also
the complaint referred to in the second paragraph of Section 38-B of the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila is precisely what is defined in Section 2 of Rule
106 of the Rules of Court made after the preliminary investigation is held, the
charges filed by respondent Congressman Albano are not covered by the
requirement of Section 2 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, said charges not
having been filed with the Court and also not filed after the preliminary
investigation is terminated.

“That the ‘complaint’ which must conform with the requirements of Section 2,
Rule 106 is the one filed in Court and not the one filed for purposes of
preliminary investigation before the City Fiscal is further clarified by the
provision of Section 38-C of the Revised Charter of Manila which states
that:

“In all cases brought to the Office of the City Fiscal involving crimes
cognizable by the Court of First Instance * * * no complaint or information
shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a
preliminary investigation. * * *”

Since the above provision of law clearly shows that the preliminary
investigation precedes the filing of the complaint which is what is defined and
mentioned in the Rules of Court, the charge filed by respondent Congressman
Albano which was not the result of the preliminary investigation but started it
need not conform to the definition of complaint in the Rules of
Court.”

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as
to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] 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.”