NATALIA B. NICOMEDES AND PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS VS. THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal
dismissing the petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by
petitioners praying that respondent provincial fiscal be restrained’ from
conducting the preliminary investigation of a case involving the death of one
Asuncion Sertimo.

Asuncion Sertimo, maid of petitioners, died of certain stab wounds in the
midnight of August 7, 1958, in the mezzanine floor of petitioners’ fufhiture
store at No. 49 Sta. Mesa Boulevard, San Juan, Rizal. The San Juan police, the
justice of the peace, and the mayor investigated the death by making an ocular
inspection of the scene of the crime. They took the statements of petitioners
and other witnesses living in the adjoining rooms and ground floor of the
mezzanine. After the investigation, and from the report of the Medico Legal
Officer of the NBI who conducted an autopsy of the deceased, they found that the
wounds that caused her death were self-inflicted, furnishing a copy of their,
report to the provincial fiscal, the provincial governor, the NBI, the PC and
the Office of Malacañang. Because of said finding, no one was prosecuted.

Two months after the incident, however, the PC, thru its CIS agents,
conducted a reinvestigation of the case requiring petitioners to appear before,
them. While at first they refused to appear, they agreed later giving their
statements before the Chief Legal Officer of the CIS, at Camp Crame. This
officer (submitted his report to the provincial fiscal recommending the
prosecution of petitioners for murder, whereupon, the latter summoned peti-,
tioners to appear before him for preliminary investigation, Instead of
appearing, they filed the present petition seeking to enjoin the fiscal from
conducting the investigation.

Petitioners contend in their petition that the reinvestigation which the
Philippine Constabulary has conducted of the case is uncalled for, unwarranted,
and illegal, the same not being authorized by law, and that both the PC and the
provincial fiscal acted in excess of their authority In making the same
investigation because the San Juan police which has exclusive jurisdiction of
the case had already done it, with the result that a new investigation thereof
would place petitioners in double jeopardy.

Respondents, on the othef hand, contend that the PC as & national police
agency has authority to act on the case; that the provincial fiscal in calling
petitioners for preliminary investigation acted in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act No. 732; and that the actions taken by the PC and the
provincial fiscal are valid and within the bounds of the law.

Issues having been joined, the lower court set the case for hearing, but
petitioners filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings stating that the
provincial fiscal failed to deny specifically the material allegations of the
petition thereby admitting the same, and apparently agreeing to it, the court
rendered decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

While it is true that the death of Asuncion Sertimo has already been
investigated by the police force of San Juan, Rizal, and its opinion was that
the stab wounds found in her body were self-inflicted thereby concluding that
she committed suicide, said investigation is not conclusive as to bar other
police officers from making further investigation especially ths law officers of
the locality charged with the duty of bringing the culprits to the bar of
justice. Among such police officers are the members of the Philippine
Constabulary which is a national police agency duly authorized and empowered to
prevent and suppress breaches of the peace and violations of the law in the
Philippines. Thus, Section 848 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

“Sec. 848. Authority of members of Constabulary as peace officers.
-Members of the Constabulary are peace officers and are authorized and empowered
to prevent and suppress brigandage, unlawful assemblies, riots, insurrections,
and other breaches of the peace ami violations of the law. They are empowered
and required to execute any lawful warrant or order of arrest issued against any
person or persons for any violation of law, and to make arrests upon reasonable
suspicion without warrant for breaches of the peace or other violations of
law.”

It cannot be disputed that the act surrounding the death of Asuncion Sertimo
is a breach of the peace that demands a thorough investigation by any police
force with a view to bringing the party responsible to the bar of Justice.
Certainly, a violation of the law has been committed, for no less than the life
of a person is involved, and to such dastardly act our constabulary force cannot
remain indifferent if it wants to do its duty. Anyway, the only purpose of its
inquiry is to find out the truth. As the lower court has properly observed:

“The contentions of the petitioners are untenable. It is apparent that there
is a misapprehension of the scope of the authority of the Philippine
Constabulary as guardian of the law and order. Petitioners would want to convey
the idea that only the San Juan Police can and should investigate crimes within
its jurisdiction and thus exclude the national police agency that is the
Philippine Constabulary. If such argument were carried to is logical conclusion,
then it would necessarily follow that the Constabulary would not have any
territory to cover under the duty impose upon it by law-to enforce law and
order-and, consequently, its existence would not serve the purpose for which it
was created. Such con-tention of petitioners is therefore without any logical
basis.”

Neither is it correct to say that the Provincial Fiscal of Hizal can no
longer conduct a preliminary investigation because the police force of San Juan
has already conducted its own and found that the deceased committed suicide, for
such is his duty whenever a crime is committed within his jurisdiction. This can
be clearly gleaned from Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 732, which we quote for reference:

“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. * * * To this end, he may, with due notice to the accused, summon reputed
witnesses and require them to appear before him and testify and be
cross-examined under oath by the accused upon the patter’s request. * * *

“The Provincial Fiscal shall also cause to be investigated the cause of
sudden deaths which have not been satisfactorily explained and when there is
suspicion that the cause arose from the unlawful a§ts or oppressions of other
persons, or from foul play. * * *”

The claim that a reinvestigation of the case by the provincial fiscal would
place petitioners in double jeopardy is untenable, for that defense can only be
availed of when the accused undergoes a court trial before a proper court and
does not apply to a preliminary or administrative investigation. And it is a
well-known rule that an injunction will not lie to restrain a criminal
prosecution for the obvious reason that public interest requires that criminal
acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society
(Gorospe vs. Peñaflorida, 101 Phil., 886).

“Nature of preliminary investigation.-While a preliminary
investigation may in a sense be inquisitorial, it is often the only means of
discovering1- the persons who may reasonably be charged witH a crime so as to
enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. Such investigation is
not properly a trial or any part thereof, but is merely preparatory thereto, and
has no other purpose than that of determining whether a crime has been
committed, and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty
thereof. Accordingly, a pled of double jeopardy based on die fact that prior to
the defendant’s trial there had been two preliminary examinations carried on in
the proceedings against hiin relative to the same offense for which he is being
tried, in the first of which he had been discharged for lack of evidence and in
the second he had been remanded for trial, cannot be sustained.” (2 Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 ed., p. 660, and cases cited
therein.)

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.