THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. PEDRO LANCANAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Samar, dismissing an information on a motion to quash. The motion to
quash is based on the alleged failure of the information to allege
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The principal allegations of the information which originated this criminal case are:

“That on or about the 13th day of November, 1951 * *
* the above-named accused, being then the Chief of Police * * * and
while entrusted with the custody or charge and vigilance of (name of
persons detained), who were detention prisoners * * *, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously consent to the escape of said
prisoners and evade detention by releasing them without the order of
the court * * *.”

The motion to quash alleged:

“The original complaint for Illegal Possession of
Firearms in Criminal Case No. 2580 was filed on December 19, 1951
although the six accused were arrested without warrant on November 12,
1951 at about 9:30 in the evening. The fact therefore is clear that on
November 13, 1951 when these six persons were allegedly released by the
accused, there was no pending charge against them.”

The provincial fiscal opposed the motion to quash, alleging that it
is not predicated on the insufficiency of the facts alleged, but on the
claim that the persons released were not yet charged with any valid
complaint on November 13, 1951, so their release was made when they
were not yet prisoners detained by a court order—facts which do not
appear in the information, but which go to the merits of the case. The
court a quo examined the records of the case and found that
on November 12, 1951, the complaint was sworn to before the municipal
mayor. It was to be presented to the Justice of the Peace, but the
latter was absent; as a matter of fact the following note was placed on
the complaint RECEIVED AND FILED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOV. ’51, but no
signature appears on the typewritten name of the justice of the peace
below the note. Below the above note, the following note appeared
RECEIVED AND FILED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOV, under which appeared the
signature of the justice of the peace. There were affidavits attached
to the complaint, also dated November 12, 1951, but nowhere does it
appear that the municipal mayor made a preliminary investigation, or
issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused therein. On the basis of
the above facts and findings the trial court held that “the herein
accused Pedro C. Lancanan has not committed the crime of infidelity in
the custody of the prisoners * * *” and ordered the dismissal of the
case.

The first error imputed to the trial court is its consideration of
facts not alleged in the information. The facts, however, are apparent
from the record and these facts are not denied by the provincial
fiscal. Though they may not constitute admissions on the part of the
fiscal, they certainly fall within the spirit and principle contained
in People vs. Navarro, 75 Phil., 516. We find no difference between
facts merely admitted and undeniable facts appearing on the record of a
case. If one is allowed, there is no reason for denying admission of
the other. As the facts are clear and not susceptible of contradiction,
it would be idle ceremony to return the case to the trial court for
trial at which the same facts of record will have to be introduced. It
seems more in accord with expediency for us to overlook the technical
irregularity that the trial court is claimed to have committed, which
irregularity we do not here admit to exist because it was sanctioned by
us in the case of Navarro, supra, and proceed to determine
the validity of the order of the court on the basis of the facts found
in the record, rather than remand the case to the trial court. The
claim that the court acted improperly in the consideration of the
motion to quash must be dismissed.

The conclusion of the trial court that the case was not filed until
December 19, 1951 is borne out by the record and is correct. The note
RECEIVED AND FILED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOV. 1951 with the typewritten name
of the justice of the peace, but without his signature, shows that the
complaint was merely intended to be filed with said official. If the
mayor had intended to receive it for filing, he should have signed the
above note. There was, therefore, merely an attempt and intent to file
it with the justice of the peace, which attempt was not carried out
because the justice of the peace was absent. An attempt to file, which
was not carried out because the official before whom it was to be
presented for filing was absent, can not be confused with actual
filing. And swearing a complaint before a municipal mayor is no filing
either. The latter official is not a clerk or officer of the court; no
provision of the rules authorizes him to act for and on behalf of the
justice of the peace in the acceptance of complaints for filing. The
fact also that the justice of the peace on December 19, 1951 may have
believed that on that day the complaint was being refiled, is no reason
why we may conclude that it was filed previously, i. e. on November 12.
The alleged error imputed to the trial court for dismissing the
complaint is, therefore, also without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the order appealed from is hereby confirmed. Without costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Concepcion, JJ., concur.