THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. MIGUEL JAMISOLA, ACCUSED-APPELLEE, THE MUNICIPALITY OF PAGADIAN, REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN F. ARAO AND PONCIANO L. DUEñAS, IN THEIR O…

In the Municipal Court of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur,
Miguel Jamisola was charged with having feloniously
obstructed a municipal alley by constructing thereon several concrete posts, in
violation of Section 1 of Mu­nicipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1962, of said
muni­cipality.  After trial upon a plea
of not guilty, said defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to pay a
fine of P50.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
imprisonment for twenty (20) days, with costs of suit.  He was
furthermore ordered to remove the concrete posts he had planted within the alley referred to in the case.

From the above decision the defendant appealed to the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur
where, after re-investigating the case, the Provincial Fiscal filed a motion
for its dismissal upon the ground that, according to the evidence in his
possession, the de­fendant had not closed the alley mentioned in the com­plaint
below, and that the question to be determined was precisely the location of the
alley alleged to have been obstructed. 
The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case.  The motion for reconsideration filed by the
municipality of Pagadian, through the Municipal Mayor
and the Chief of Police, having been denied, said municipality took the present
appeal, claiming that the lower court erred in denying the motion for
reconsideration aforesaid and in reiterating its order of dismissal.

We find no merit in the present appeal.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that upon appeal by the
defendant from a judgment of conviction by the municipal court, the appealed decision is vacated and the appealed
case “shall be tried in all respects anew in the court of first instance
as if it had been ori­ginally instituted in that court”. (Rule 123,
Section 7, Rules of Court).  In the
appellate court the case may proceed upon the complaint filed below or upon an infor­mation filed with said court by the Provincial
Fiscal charging exactly the same offense, the appellate pro­ceedings calling
thereafter for the arraignment of the defendant.

On the other hand, under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the
Fiscal has “the direction and control” of the prosecution (Section
4).  In the exercise of this authority the Fiscal may
re-investigate the case and subsequently move for its dismissal should the
re-investigation show either that
the defendant is innocent or
that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt.  This is what the Provincial Fiscal of Zamboanga del Sur did in the
present case.

Upon the foregoing, We find
that the Provincial Fiscal mentioned heretofore and the lower court acted in
accordance with law and decided cases (People vs. Jaramilla,
G. R. L-8030, November 8, 1955;
People vs. Malayao, G. R. L-12103, February 28,
1961), it being clear, furthermore, that the dismissal complained of does not
deprive the muni­cipality of Pagadian of the right to
seek relief against
defendant Jamisola in an appropriate civil
action.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.