JOSE BERNARDO AND ROSARIO GUICO BERNARDO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH I, ZAMBOANGA D…

The administration of justice in the Philippines
firmly rests on the postulate that in this fair land of ours no man, no matter
how poor, no matter how humble shall ever thirst for justice.  Petitioners and spouses Jose Bernardo and Rosario
Guico Bernardo are common barrio people, victims of
harassment and persecution.  They thirst
for justice.  As an ultimate recourse
they have come to Us for relief.  Their cause is meritorious.  They are entitled to relief.  They shall receive it.  Immediately.

This petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
with preliminary mandatory injunction places in issue the alleged grave abuse
of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction perpetrated by the respondents
in refusing to dismiss Criminal Case No. 1103, of the Court of First Instance
of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch I (Judge Rafael T.
Mendoza), entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Jose Bernardo and
Rosario Guico Bernardo”, notwithstanding the
evident facts that the charge of estafa emanated from
a purely civil obligation and the offended parties accepted payment, including
interest, and filed spontaneous desistance during the preliminary investigation
of the case; and the refusal of respondents to fix and accept bail bond for
petitioners in the aforemen­tioned criminal case.

The facts appearing of record are:

(1)  
On the basis of an affidavit (Annex
“A” to petition) of Anacleto Q. Olvis, the Chief of Police of Manukan,
Zamboanga del Norte, filed on July 17, 1973, a
complaint for estafa (Annex “A-1” to
petition), in the amount of P9,008.13, with the Municipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte,
against petitioners Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico
Bernardo;

(2)  
After the preliminary examination the Manukan Municipal Court issued an order (Annex
“B” to the petition) for the arrest of petitioners and fixed the bail
bond at P3,000; petitioner Jose Bernardo was arrested and detained at the Manukan Municipal jail; on July 19, 1973, he posted a bail
bond and was released;

(3)  
On July 23, 1973, the Municipal Court of Manukan issued an order (Annex “C” to petition)
recalling its previous order of arrest granting bail to the accused and
ordering the arrest of the accused without bail, pursuant to General Order No.
29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General Order No. 2, dated September 30,
1972 of the President of the Republic, ordering the arrest and detention of
persons accused of swindling, in large scale;

(4)  
On July 26, 1973, the spouses Anac­leto Q. Olvis and Iniega Olvis appeared before the
Municipal Court of Manukan, and filed a joint
affidavit of desistance (Annex “D” to peti­tion), withdrawing the
case against petitioners because their witnesses had turned hostile and they
could not prove the case;

(5)  
Petitioners’ counsel filed a motion to quash the
case and recall the warrant of ar­rest (Annex “E” to petition) on the
ground that complaint was civil in nature and the complain­ants “have lost
interest in the case”; the Chief of Police Serafin
Lorenzo and the Special Coun­sel (prosecutor) Crisostomo
C. Empaynado signed the said motion;

(6)  
On the same date that the motion was filed (July
26, 1973), the sum of P9,008.13, excluding the interest in the amount of
P1,080.00 paid directly to Anacleto Olvis was depo­sited in the Municipal Court of Manukan as payment of the amount alleged in the com­plaint,
which sum was delivered to and ac­cepted by Anacleto Olvis on July 26, 1973, and who signed a receipt therefor on July 27, 1973 (Annexes “F”,
“G”, “Y”, “Z” to petition);

(7)  
There being no objection on the part of the
fiscal and the Chief of Police, the Municipal Court of Manukan
in its order of July 26, 1973 (Annex “H” to petition) provisionally
quashed or recalled the war­rant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 1345 subject to
the final approval of the provin­cial fiscal and/or his assistants;

(8)  
Two days after the record of Cri­minal Case No.
1345 was sent to the office of the Provincial Fiscal on August 6, 1973, Anacleto Olvis requested for a
reinvestiga­tion of the case on the ground that witnesses who have turned
hostile were willing to tes­tify for the prosecution (Annex “I” and
“J” to petition);

(9)  
Special Counsel Crisostomo
Empay­nado (prosecutor) in the Municipal Court of Manukan in Criminal Case No. 1345 was relieved and replaced
by the Provincial Fiscal who as­signed Special Counsel Wilfredo
G. Guantero to conduct the preliminary investigation
in Cri­minal Case No. 1345 (Annex “K” to petition);

(10)     
Special counsel Guantero
notwith­standing his knowledge of the payment re­ceived by Anacleto
Olvis required the peti­tioners to file counter
affidavits, whereupon petitioners, thru counsel, filed a motion to dismiss
(Annex “L” to petition) on the grounds that the nature of the
complaint in the case was only civil and not criminal; and that the supposed
offended parties agreed to a dis­missal of the complaint after receiving pay­ment
of the amount claimed, plus interest;

(11)     
On September 25, 1973, petitioners informed the
investigating Fiscal in writing (Annex “M” to petition) that the case
was purely civil in nature, providing him with copies of the promissory notes
voluntarily returned by the complainant Anacleto Olvis to the petitioners when he received payment for his
claim that led to the dismissal of the criminal case in the Municipal Court of Manukan;

(12)     
On October 23, 1973, the inves­tigating Fiscal
denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss, whereupon petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration on October 31, 1973 (An­nex “N” to petition) together
with the coun­ter affidavit of petitioner Rosario Guico
Ber­nardo explaining the civil nature of the trans­actions with complainant Anacleto Olvis;

(13)     
The investigating fiscal denied the motion for
reconsideration and filed an in­formation for simple estafa
(Art. 315-1-B, Revised Penal Code) against the petitioners (Annex “O”
to petition) on October 31, 1973 in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1103;
with a motion to admit information, and to issue warrant of arrest, without any
bail bond recommended (Annex “P” to petition);

(14)     
On November 7, 1973, respondent judge issued an
order and a warrant of ar­rest against petitioners without fixing any bail bond
(Annexes “Q” and “Q-1”) and petitioner Jose Bernardo was
arrested at midnight of the same day and detained from November 10, 1973 at the
Office of the N.B.I. at Dipolog
City (Annex “R” to petition);

(15)     
Also on November 7, 1973, the petitioner, thru
counsel, filed an urgent motion to quash admission of the informa­tion and the
warrant of arrest in Civil Case No. 1103 (Annex “S” to petition)
questioning the jurisdiction of the court (respondent judge) to admit the
information as the prosecuting fiscal had no authority to file it on the
grounds that the case was civil in nature; that it had been previously
dismissed after the complain­ant Olvis accepted
payment of his claims plus interest;

(16)     
On November 8, 1973, respondent judge denied the
urgent notice to quash, hence an urgent motion for reconsideration (Annex
“U” to petition) was filed by petitioner on November 10, 1973,
reiterating the grounds in the main motion and alleging clear abuse of
discretion when the respondent court ac­cepted the information because the acts
com­plained of were merely civil in nature and did not constitute an offense;

(17)     
On November
10, 1973, respondent judge issued an order (Annex “V” to
petition) denying the said urgent motion for reconsidera­tion;

(18)     
On November 19, 1973, petitioners filed an
urgent motion to admit to and fix bail (Annex “W” to petition),
alleging that under Sec. 18 of Article IV of the 1973 Con­stitution they are
entitled to bail as a matter of right as they are charged with simple estafa and that their case does not fall under the
provisions of General Order No. 29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General
Order No. 2, dated September 30, 1972, which denies bail to persons charged
with swindling and other deceits as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the
Revised Penal Code, in large scale;

(19)     
On November 20, 1973, the respon­dent judge
issued an order (Annex “X” to pe­tion)
commanding that a copy of the afore­mentioned motion be sent to the Fifth RECAD, Zamboanga City, thru the
Provincial Com­mander, 463rd P.C. in accordance with Defense Order No. 739,
dated January 25, 1973, and set the hearing of the urgent motion for December
12, 1973;

(20)     
The respondent judge acted favor­ably to
petitioners’ urgent motion to admit and fix bail, fixed the bail bond for provi­sional
release of the petitioners at P3,000 each, on December 12, 1973 (Annex
“1” to Answer).

It should be noted that in its resolution of December 3, 1979, this Court ordered the
respondent Judge to admit both petitioners to bail in the amount of P3,000.00 each.  The
order of respondent Judge of December
12, 1973 thus came late.  Altough late, however, it rendered the issue of whether or
not petitioners are entitled to bail because they were merely charged with
simple estafa and they did not fall under the
provisions of General Order No. 29, dated April 13, 1973, amending General
Order No. 2, dated September 30, 1972, moot and academic.

The only issues left for Us to resolve then are whether or not
the respondent fiscal acted in grave abuse of discre­tion in filing the
information for estafa against the petitioners in
Criminal Case No. 1103, Court of First Instance, Zam­boanga
del Norte, notwithstanding his awareness of the cir­cumstances that resulted in
the dismissal of the same case during the preliminary investigation conducted
by the Muni­cipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, in Criminal Case No. 1345; and whether
or not the respondent judge com­mitted grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of juris­diction in admitting and giving due course to the informa­tion
filed against petitioners for estafa in Criminal Case
No. 1103, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga del
Norte, although he was made aware of the circumstances leading to the filing of
said information.

A close scrutiny of the original complaint and the sup­porting
affidavit of complainant Anacleto Q. Olvis (Annexes “A” and “A-1” to
petition) filed with the Municipal Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, in Criminal Case No. 1345, already
raises a doubt as to the real nature of the trans­actions entered into between
the petitioners and the complain­ants, from the point of view of whether the
claimed sum of P9,008.13 were given as loans to the petitioners to be paid by
the copra produce of the petitioners’ lands or if the sum of money was
entrusted by complainants to petitioners for the purpose of buying copra to be
delivered to the complain­ants.

But this doubt disappeared after complainant Anacleto
Q. Olvis accepted payment of the claimed sum of P9,008.13 plus an interest of P1,080.00.  Clearly the relationship be­tween complainant
and petitioners was that of creditor and debtors and the transaction was civil
in nature, not criminal.  This conclusion
becomes incontrovertible in the light of the receipts signed by petitioners
when they received the sums of money from the complainant on various occasions,
the said receipts bearing the title “Promissory Note” and its
contents clearly spelling out that petitioners received loans from complainant.

Respondent fiscal erred in filing Criminal Case No. 1103,
considering the antecedents of the case and the documentary evidence
involved.  Wittingly or unwittingly, by
his official acts, he caused grave prejudice and injustice to petitioners.

Prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order that they may
properly fulfill their assigned role in the ad­ministration of justice.  It should be realized, however, that when a
man is haled to court on a criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not
only for the accused but for his family as well.  Therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh
the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of
a prima facie case before filing the informa­tion in court.  Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Respondent judge erred in admitting and giving due course to the
information, considering that he was made aware of the circumstances leading to
the filing of said in­formation.  But his
graver error is in issuing a warrant of arrest without a recommendation for
bail for clearly the charges contained in Criminal Case No. 1103 did not fall
within the purview of General Order No. 2 dated September 30, 1972 as amended by General Order No. 29
dated April 13, 1973.  The right to bail is a constitutional
right.  Its denial to an accused is
allowed only in rare cases.  Respondent
judge would do well to examine more carefully the laws and juris­prudence on
the right to bail before denying the same.

WHEREFORE, the orders dated November 8, 1973 and November 10, 1973, of the respondent judge are hereby re­versed
and set aside.  Both respondents are
hereby ordered to desist from further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1103,
entitled “People vs. Jose Bernardo and Rosario Guico
Ber­nardo”, pending in respondent court, and to dismiss said case, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice
who is hereby directed to look into the official actua­tions of Special Counsel
Wilfredo G. Guantero and to
take whatever course of action may be proper in the premises, and to inform
this Court of the action so taken.

SO ORDERED.

Antonio, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., on leave.

*
George Washington