THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. ARTEMIO PERVEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

People versus Pervez

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Artemio Pervez, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on appeal by the Government from an order of dismissal. The question is narrow but foundational for every prosecutor and defense counsel: after a justice of the peace dismisses a charge for insufficiency of evidence, may the provincial fiscal still file an information in the Court of First Instance on the strength of his own preliminary investigation, conducted without the presence of the accused who never asked to be present? The case matters because it draws the dividing line between a case elevated on a finding of a prima facie case, where the fiscal simply files, and a case dismissed below, where the slate is wiped clean and the fiscal may investigate anew under Republic Act 732, as amended.

Procedural History

Artemio Pervez was charged with attempted rape before the Justice of the Peace of San Miguel, Iloilo. The justice of the peace conducted the first and second stages of the preliminary investigation and, on January 30, 1959, dismissed the charge for insufficiency of evidence. Disagreeing, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo filed an information for attempted rape in the Court of First Instance, certifying that he had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with Republic Act 732, as amended, that there was reasonable ground to believe the offense charged had been committed, and that the accused was guilty thereof.

Pervez moved to quash. The Court of First Instance granted the motion and dismissed the information, holding that after the dismissal by the justice of the peace the fiscal had no authority to file unless upon a new preliminary investigation in which the accused had the right to be present and to submit his evidence, and that Republic Act 732, as amended by Republic Act 1799, applied only to crimes cognizable by the Court of First Instance and filed directly with it. The Government appealed the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On December 8, 1958, Artemio Pervez was charged with attempted rape before the Justice of the Peace of San Miguel, Iloilo. The justice of the peace took up the charge through the first and second stages of the preliminary investigation. On January 30, 1959, he dismissed the charge for insufficiency of evidence.

The Provincial Fiscal did not accept that conclusion. On February 19, 1959, he filed an information for attempted rape against Pervez in the Court of First Instance, certifying that he had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with Republic Act 732, as amended, and that there was reasonable ground to believe the offense had been committed and that the accused was guilty of it.

Nothing in the record showed that Pervez had ever requested to be present at the fiscal's investigation. On his motion to quash, however, the trial court dismissed the information, reasoning that the fiscal needed a new preliminary investigation, with the accused present, before he could file. The Government brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Provincial Fiscal may conduct his own preliminary investigation of a charge previously dismissed by the justice of the peace, the dismissal being no bar to another prosecution.
• Whether or not the fiscal's preliminary investigation is valid without previous notice to, and in the absence of, the accused who did not request to be present.
• Whether or not Republic Act 732, as amended, applies to a charge originally filed with the justice of the peace and dismissed by him, as distinguished from a case elevated to the Court of First Instance on a finding of a prima facie case.

Applicable Provisions

Republic Act 732, as amended, governs the preliminary investigation conducted by provincial fiscals, and the Court reads it as requiring notice to the accused only upon his request. The Court states the rule in its own summary:

But if the Justice of the Peace, after due investigation, dismisses the charge, then the case stands as if no charge had been made, and the Provincial Fiscal may thereafter conduct his own investigation of the same charge under the aforesaid Republic Act 732, making it in the presence of the accused if and when the latter so requests.

This is the operative rule: dismissal erases the charge for purposes of prosecution, and the fiscal's authority under the statute revives, with the presence of the accused conditioned on his request.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Provincial Fiscal is not precluded from conducting his own preliminary investigation of a case previously dismissed by the justice of the peace, since such dismissal creates no bar to another prosecution. The only question was whether he may do so without the presence of the accused.

On the second issue, the Court answered yes. In a line of cases, it had repeatedly held that the legality of a preliminary investigation by the Provincial Fiscal under Republic Act 732, as amended, is not affected by lack of previous notice to the accused, for notice is required only after the accused has requested to be present. Since it was neither averred nor shown that Pervez had made such a request, the fiscal acted within his authority.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the reliance on the Villanueva case as a total misapprehension of its import. That ruling concerned cases where the justice of the peace conducted the second stage and found a prima facie case, or where the accused waived preliminary investigation; there the fiscal may rely on the evidence already taken and need not investigate anew. The Court distinguished the situations in its summary:

In resume, we reiterate our previous rulings that if the charge for a crime cognizable by the Court of First Instance is filed by a competent party or officer in the Justice of the Peace Court, and the accused waives preliminary investigation therein, or the Justice of the Peace, after regular preliminary investigation, finds that a prima facie case exists, and consequently, elevates the records to the Court of First Instance, the Provincial Fiscal is not called upon to conduct another investigation, and may forthwith file the information in the Court of First Instance.

The Court added a caveat: where the justice of the peace forwards a case with a finding of a prima facie case, the fiscal cannot on his own authority dismiss the case, but should file a motion to dismiss with the court.

Doctrine

First, the findings of the justice of the peace do not bind the Provincial Fiscal, and a dismissal for insufficiency of evidence is no bar to another prosecution; the case stands as if no charge had been made.

Second, the fiscal may then conduct his own preliminary investigation under Republic Act 732, as amended, and its legality is not affected by the absence of the accused who did not request to be present, because notice is required only upon such request.

Third, the distinction: where the justice of the peace finds a prima facie case and elevates the records, or the accused waives preliminary investigation, the fiscal need not investigate again and may forthwith file the information; Republic Act 732 does not apply. Where the justice of the peace dismisses, the fiscal investigates anew under the statute.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the information, with costs against the appellee Pervez.

Remember This

Memorize the line: if the justice of the peace dismisses the charge, the case stands as if no charge had been made, and the fiscal may investigate anew under Republic Act 732, in the presence of the accused only if he so requests. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a case elevated on a prima facie finding, where the fiscal merely files, and a case dismissed below, where a fresh fiscal investigation is required and notice depends on the accused's request.