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

Nicomedes versus Chief of Constabulary

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Natalia Nicomedes and Preciolita Corliss against the Chief of Constabulary and the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. The petitioners ask the courts to restrain the provincial fiscal from conducting a preliminary investigation into the death of their housemaid, Asuncion Sertimo. The case matters because it settles two questions every criminal procedure student must know: whether a local police investigation bars a national police agency from reinvestigating the same incident, and whether a preliminary investigation places an accused in double jeopardy.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking to restrain the provincial fiscal from conducting the preliminary investigation. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.

Facts

Asuncion Sertimo was the maid of the petitioners. In the midnight of August 7, 1958, she died of stab wounds on the mezzanine floor of the petitioners' furniture store at 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. They took the statements of the petitioners and other witnesses. After the investigation, and from the report of the Medico Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation who conducted the autopsy, they found that the wounds that caused her death were self-inflicted. They furnished copies of their report to the provincial fiscal, the provincial governor, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine Constabulary, and the Office of Malacañang. Because of that finding, no one was prosecuted.

Two months after the incident, the Philippine Constabulary, through its Criminal Investigation Service agents, conducted a reinvestigation of the case and required the petitioners to appear before them. The petitioners at first refused to appear, but later agreed and gave their statements before the Chief Legal Officer of the Criminal Investigation Service at Camp Crame. That officer submitted his report to the provincial fiscal recommending the prosecution of the petitioners for murder. The provincial fiscal then summoned the petitioners to appear before him for preliminary investigation.

Instead of appearing, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking to enjoin the fiscal from conducting the investigation. They contended that the reinvestigation by the Philippine Constabulary was uncalled for, unwarranted, and illegal, not being authorized by law, and that both the Philippine Constabulary and the provincial fiscal acted in excess of their authority because the San Juan police, which had exclusive jurisdiction of the case, had already investigated it, with the result that a new investigation would place the petitioners in double jeopardy. The respondents countered that the Philippine Constabulary, as a national police agency, had authority to act on the case, and that the provincial fiscal, in calling the petitioners for preliminary investigation, acted in accordance with Republic Act Number 732.

Issues

• Whether or not the Philippine Constabulary may conduct a reinvestigation of a death already investigated by the local police, which had concluded that the wounds were self-inflicted.
• Whether or not the provincial fiscal may conduct a preliminary investigation despite the prior investigation and finding of the local police.
• Whether or not a reinvestigation and preliminary investigation would place the petitioners in double jeopardy.
• Whether or not an injunction will lie to restrain a criminal prosecution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 848 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Section 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 and 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.

This provision establishes that the Philippine Constabulary is a national police agency empowered to investigate breaches of the peace and violations of the law, independently of the local police.

Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 732, provides:

Section 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 latter'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 acts or oppressions of other persons, or from foul play.

This provision is the source of the provincial fiscal's duty and authority to conduct a preliminary investigation, including the investigation of sudden deaths not satisfactorily explained.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the investigation by the San Juan police was not conclusive and did not bar other police officers from making further investigation, especially the law officers of the locality charged with the duty of bringing culprits to the bar of justice. The Philippine Constabulary is a national police agency duly authorized and empowered to prevent and suppress breaches of the peace and violations of the law. The Court stressed that the only purpose of its inquiry is to find out the truth.

On the second issue, the Court held that the provincial fiscal could still conduct a preliminary investigation because such is his duty whenever a crime is committed within his jurisdiction, as clearly gleaned from Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 732.

On the third issue, the Court held that the claim of double jeopardy was 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. The Court quoted with approval the following:

Nature of preliminary investigation. While a preliminary investigation may in a sense be inquisitorial, it is often the only means of discovering 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 plea of double jeopardy based on the fact that prior to the defendant's trial there had been two preliminary examinations carried on in the proceedings against him 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 was remanded for trial, cannot be sustained.

On the fourth issue, the Court held 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.

Doctrine

A finding by the local police that a death was self-inflicted is not conclusive and does not bar the Philippine Constabulary, as a national police agency, from conducting a reinvestigation. The authority of the Constabulary as peace officers under Section 848 of the Revised Administrative Code is concurrent with, not subordinate to, that of the local police.

The provincial fiscal has the authority and the duty, under Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Republic Act Number 732, to conduct a preliminary investigation into any crime within his jurisdiction, including sudden deaths not satisfactorily explained, regardless of any prior investigation by the local police.

Double jeopardy does not attach to a preliminary or administrative investigation. It is available only when the accused undergoes a court trial before a proper court. A preliminary investigation is not a trial or any part thereof; it is merely preparatory, its only purpose being to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty.

An injunction will not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution, because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the petition, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a preliminary investigation is not a trial, so double jeopardy does not attach to it, and an injunction will not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution. Examiners like to use this case to test the concurrent authority of the Philippine Constabulary and the local police, and the nature of a preliminary investigation as merely preparatory and not a bar to subsequent reinvestigation.