ELENA L. GARCIA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

The petitioner appealed
from a
decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila dismissing
her petition for mandamus and prohibition with preliminary injunction, which
seeks to compel the respondent City Mayor to file, with the Municipal Board of Manila, administrative charges against certain
members of the
Manila Police Department without having the matter first investigated by
the Inspection Division of the Manila Police Department.

Sometime in 1963, the
petitioner, Elena L. Gar­cia, allegedly
the victim of an illegal arrest commit­ted by Sgt. Patrocinio
Sembrano and Pat Nazario de
Vera of the Manila Police Department (referred to hereinafter as the MPD),
lodged a complaint against the latter in the office of the City Mayor of
Manila.  Acting upon the complaint, the
Mayor indorsed it to the Inspection Division of the MPD “in order to
determine whether there is a
cause of action.” Appearing before said office, the
petitioner contested its jurisdiction to investigate her complaint, but the
objection was overruled upon an opinion given by a legal officer of the MPD.

Hence, petitioner
instituted the instant proceedings.

Petitioner
takes the view that upon receipt by the City Mayor of her complaint against the
two po­licemen, it became the Mayor’s ministerial duty, under section 1 of
Republic Act 557, to prefer and file charges against them with the Municipal
Board of Manila, based on the allegations of her complaint.

In
dismissing the petition, the lower court upheld the contention advanced by the
respondents that “the City Mayor is not duty bound to prefer and file the
corresponding charges with the Municipal Board, for the law gives him the
discretion to prefer and file or refuse to prefer and file, the corresponding
charges, depending on whether or not he finds a pro­bable or prima facie case against the policemen.”

The view of the trial
court is sound and persuasive.  While
section 1 of the law provides that for the purposes of securing disciplinary action
against a member of the city police force, charges shall be preferred by the
city mayor and investigated by the city council, this provision does not
preclude the city mayor from conducting a prior inquiry in order to ascertain
whether the complaint lodged in his office, is prima facie meritorious or sham, before he himself files formal charges with the
city council or municipal board, and in so ascertaining, he can delegate the
investigation of the case to any capable person or group of persons subordinate
to him.  Indeed, to hold that it is the
ministerial duty of the city mayor to file charges everytime
he receives complaint from private citizens, regardless of whether the charges
have prima facie merit, is to make the office of the Mayor an
instrument for persecution if the case turns out later on to be without basis
and reason.

The case relied upon by
the petitioner-appellant (Covacha v. Amante, 99 Phil. 1037), is not squarely in point.  In that case, the investigation of a member
of the police force, after the charges were formally filed, was conducted by a
committee created by the city mayor of Bacolod. 
Instead of the city council, it was the committee that was assigned to
determine whether the policeman was going to be suspended or removed or
otherwise punished.  In the case at bar,
however, no charges had as yet been filed by the City Mayor of Manila.  The inquiry that was to be conducted by the
Investigation Division of the MPD was only for the mayor’s own purposes and not
in substitution for the investigation contemplated in section 1 of Republic Act
557, which would be conducted by the municipal board should charges be filed by
the City Mayor himself.

Be that as it may, the
question, however, has become academic with the enactment of the Police Act of
1966^[1] creating the Police Commission, which
provides in its section 14 that –

“Members of the local police agency shall not be suspended or
removed except upon written complaint filed under oath with the Board of
Investigators herein provided for misconduct or incompetency,
dishonesty, disloyalty to the Government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and
violation of law.”

Under
this
provision of the law, it is not a require­ment that charges against the peace
officer be preferred by the city or
municipal mayor or provincial governor. 
Section 24 of the law makes provision for the repeal or modification of
the provisions of Republic Act 557 which are inconsistent with the Act, and the Saving Clause thereof (sec. 25) decrees that all pending administrative
cases involving police service and personnel shall be absorbed by the Police
Commission one hundred days after the publication of the Police Manual
containing rules and regu­lations relative to such matters.”

WHEREFORE, the decision is affirmed.  No costs at this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Republic Act No. 4864, approved Sept.
8, 1966.