PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. YU GO KEE AND VICENTE SUN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Lim
Bun Chuan filed with the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila a complaint for
falsification of public and official documents against Yu Go Kee. In
turn, the latter’s wife, Teng Yaa, filed with the same office a
complaint for estafa against Lim Bun Chuan. In the presence of the
parties, a joint preliminary investigation of these cases was conducted
by Fiscal Jose T. M. Mayo, an Assistant Fiscal of the Preliminary
Investigation Division of said City Fiscal’s Office. Before Lim Bun
Chuan closed his evidence, he included Vicente Sun as co-defendant of
Yu Go Kee.

After investigation, Fiscal Mayo rendered his
“Report of Investigation”, recommending dismissal of both cases.
Disagreeing with this recommendation, Second Assistant City Fiscal
Carlos C. Gonzales, Chief of the Prosecution Division of the same
Office of the City Fiscal, filed instead three informations with the
Court of First Instance of Manila charging Yu Go Kee and Vicente Sun
for falsification of public and official documents. In filing these
informations, Fiscal Gonzales was guided solely by the evidence
submitted by Fiscal Mayo, which consisted of the testimony of the
parties who were given the chance to be heard during the preliminary
investigation.

Before arraignment, the attorneys of Yu Go Kee
and Vicente Sun filed separate motions to quash, alleging, among
others, that there was no valid preliminary investigation conducted by
Fiscal Gonzales. Fiscal Gonzales filed an opposition to the motions.
The parties submitted memoranda. On September 24, 1959, Judge Froilan
Bayona issued an order dismissing the three informations, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“In
view of the foregoing considerations, this Court is of the opinion and
so holds that these three informations against Vicente Sun and Yu Go
Kee should be, as same are hereby, dismissed on the ground’ that Fiscal
Gonzales who filed the information did not conduct the preliminary
investigation in accordance with law; and if the said information
referred to by Fiscal Gonzales in the certification was the
investigation conducted by Fiscal Mayo as basis of the informations,
these three informations likewise should be dismissed because Fiscal
Mayo himself who conducted the Investigation recommended dismissal of
these accused Vicente Sun and Yu Go Kee pursuant to his finding
appearing in Annex A.”

Fiscal Gonzales filed
a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order of dismissal. It
appears that the motion was never heard before and resolved by Judge
Bayona. To forestall the expiration of the period within which he could
appeal from the order, Fiscal Gonzales filed a notice of appeal with
this Court. In the meantime, the cases were assigned to the sala
presided by then Judge Juan P. Enriquez. On October 20, 1959, said
Judge denied the motion for reconsideration but gave due course to the
appeal.

Upon the facts presented, we find and hold that a
valid preliminary investigation preceded the filing of the informations
in the three criminal cases.

The “Report of Investigation”
prepared by Fiscal Mayo does not indicate to whom it was directed, but,
it being a mere recommendation, not a final resolution of dismissal, We
can presume that it was intended for the review and final action of
either Fiscal Gonzales or the City Fiscal himself, and if it was
forwarded direct to the City Fiscal the latter referred it to Fiscal
Gonzales in whose division the ultimate duty of prosecuting cases in
court devolves. Be this as it may, the review made by Fiscal Gonzales
was but a mere continuation of the preliminary investigation conducted
by Fiscal Mayo within the purview of Section 38-C of Republic Act No.
409, as amended. Said section reads as follows:

“Preliminary investigation of cases cognizable by the Court of First Instance.—In
all cases brought to the Office of the City Fiscal involving crimes
cognizable by the Court of First Instance, where the accused is not
already in the legal custody of the police, no complaint or information
shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in
a preliminary investigation, where such accused can be subpoenaed and
appears before the investigating fiscal, with the right to
cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses: Provided,
That when the accused is detained, he may ask for a preliminary
investigation, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
One hundred twenty five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: And provided, further,
That if the case has already been filed in court, he may ask for a
reinvestigation thereof later on with the same right to cross-examine
the witnesses against him: Provided, finally, That notwithstanding such waiver, the said investigation must be terminated within seven days from its inception.”

There
is no provision requiring a reviewing Fiscal to subpoena and hear anew
the same witnesses who appeared before another Fiscal of the same
office in a case where the latter has merely recommended dismissal. It
is enough, for purposes of complying with Section 38-C, that the
accused is heard or given the chance to be heard, with the right to
cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses, at any time prior to
th§ filing of the information in court. These requirements were met in
the preliminary investigation conducted by Fiscal Mayo. Unless and
until a case is finally dropped or dismissed by the City Fiscal,
recommendations or actions taken subsequent to the close of the
preliminary investigation are mere incidents in the same investigation.
That was why Fiscal Gonzales acted correctly in certifying at the
bottom of the informations filed by him that “a preliminary
investigation in this case has been conducted by this Office in accordance with law.”

It
is true that under Section 38-A of the Charter of Manila (Republic Act
No. 409, as amended), the Office of the City Fiscal is organized into
three divisions, to wit:

“(a) Preliminary
Investigation Division which shall have exclusive charge of the conduct
of preliminary investigations of all crimes and violations of city
ordinances;

“(b) Prosecution Division which shall have exclusive charge of the prosecution of criminal cases; and

“(c)
Miscellaneous Division which shall represent the city in all civil
cases wherein the city or any officer thereof in his official capacity
is a party, render opinions draw ordinances when required by the Board,
contracts, bonds, and inspect and pass upon all such documents already
drawn but pending approval by the city officer concerned.”

Citing
this section, defendants-appellees contend that the three divisions are
co-equal and each of them has exclusive authority within their
respective domains.

The penultimate paragraph of Section 38-A provides:

“The
City Fiscal shall effect, from time to time, such changes in the
organization of the said three divisions as the exigencies of the
service demand. This organization shall be without prejudice to the
power of the City Fiscal to designate any single assistant fiscal or
group of assistant fiscals to investigate and also prosecute the same
case or cases: Provided, That notwithstanding any provision
herein to the contrary, all of the assistant fiscals occupying the
positions affected by the amendments embodied in this Act at the time
of the approval hereof shall continue to occupy said positions and
discharge the duties and functions thereof and receive the
corresponding salary increases without the necessity of any new
appointment.”

and Section 38-B of the same Charter, in part, provides:

“Duties of the City Fiscal.—The
City Fiscal shall be the chief legal adviser of the city and all
offices and departments thereof. He shall, personally or through any
assistant, represent the city in all civil cases wherein the city or
any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party; * * *. He
shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes and violations
of the city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the
municipal courts of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in
respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial
fiscals.

“The City Fiscal shall cause to be investigated
all charges of crimes and violations of ordinances and have the
necessary informations or complaints prepared or made against the
persons accused. He or any of his assistants may conduct such
investigations by taking oral evidence of reputed witnesses, and for
this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses, to appear
and testify under oath before him, and the attendance ‘or evidence of
any absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to
the municipal court or the Court of First Instance. No witness summoned
to testify under this section shall be under obligation to give any
testimony tending to incriminate himself.”

The
provisions just quoted provide ample safeguards against a curtailment
of the City FiscaPs power of supervision and review over his
subordinates and their actuations. He has “charge of the prosecution of
all crimes and violations of the City ordinance * * *,” and to this
end, has the authority to “cause to be investigated all charges of
crimes and violations of ordinances and have the necessary informations
or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused.” Finally,
the last paragraph of Section 38-A vests the City Fiscal with the power
to “effect, from time to time, such changes in the organization of the
said three divisions as the exigencies of the service demand.”

He
can, for instance, as has probably happened here, properly designate a
Fiscal to review, for and on his behalf, the findings and
recommendations of another Fiscal of a lower rank. This is purely
internal office procedure which does not in any way detract from the
organization of the office into three divisions.

Wherefore,
the orders of September 24,1959 and October 20, 1959, are hereby set
aside, and the records of the cases are hereby remanded to the court of
origin for further proceedings or trial. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ.,concur.