G.R. No. L-21614. October 31, 1963
MARIQUITA CAPARAS, BINO TIONLOC, ORLANDO AGONCILLO, MERINO TEH, JESUS BLANCO, MARIANO FONACIER, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS VS. PEDRO D. OFIANA, AS PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF B…
DIZON, J.:
B. Fernandez with the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, charging herein
petitioners with a violation of Section 174 of the Internal Revenue
Code and Sections 3601 and 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code was
called for preliminary investigation on January 10, 1963 herein
petitioners questioned the Fiscal’s jurisdiction, claiming that tho
offense charged was committed within the jurisdiction of the province
of Ilocos Sur. This contention having been overruled, petitioners filed
the present action for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan, with a petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, against tho aforesaid Provincial Fiscal to restrain him
from proceeding with the preliminary investigation and/or from filing
the corresponding information.
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan issued a restraining order
to be effective until the case was tried on the merits. Thereafter, the
respondents filed their answer and subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss upon the grounds set forth therein. Resolving said motion, the
court, on April 18, 1963, dismissed the petition for prohibition and
set aside the restraining order already mentioned and subsequently
denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, petitioners
took the present appeal.
It appears that on September 12, 1963, the respondent Provincial
Fiscal of Bulacan filed an information against petitioners charging
them with having violated Section 3601 of Republic Act No. 1937, the
same having been docketed as Criminal Case No. 5550 of the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan. It is not denied that the charge is the same
as the one subject of the preliminary investigation which petitioners
sought to prevent the respondent Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan from
conducting with the filing of the action for prohibition now before Us.
In view of the filing of the information mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, respondents filed on October 8, 1963 a motion to dismiss the
present appeal on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction may now be
raised in the aforesaid criminal case.
Petitioners object to the dismissal of their appeal, claiming that
the filing of the criminal information aforesaid can not deprive this
court of its appellate jurisdiction over this case; that the aforesaid
information was filed in order to prevent Us from deciding the present
appeal from the order of dismissal mentioned heretofore. Moreover, in
view of the failure of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to act
upon their petition for a restraining order in the aforesaid criminal
case No. 5550 to be effective while the present appeal pending
petitioners pray that we issue said restraining order.
After considering the matter arising from the motion to dismiss and
petitioners’ opposition thereto, we find the contention of the
respondents to be well founded. It can not be denied that the purpose
of the special civil action of prohibition (Civil Case No. 2742) filed
by petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan was to
restrain the respondent Provincial Fiscal from proceeding with the
preliminary investigation of the complaint filed against them and
restrain said official from subsequently filing a criminal information
in connection with the charge therein made. It is likewise not disputed
that the present appeal involves exclusively the question of whether
the order dismissing the action should be affirmed or reversed, which,
in turn, depends upon the other question of whether the charge was
within the jurisdiction of the respondent Provincial Fiscal to
investigate and within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
of Bulacan to try and decide. These matters may now be properly raised
in Criminal Case No. 5550 of said court. A special civil action of
prohibition is proper only upon a showing that the aggrieved party has
no remedy by appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of the law. As petitioners may now raise the
question of jurisdiction in Criminal Case No. 5550 mentioned
heretofore, we find the present appeal to be of purely academic value.
Wherefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, with the result that said appeal is hereby dismissed, without costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.