VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS VS. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Sometime in April, 1958, Manuel Sagales lodged a complaint with the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan against petitioners charging them with a
violation of Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint was
given due course and was assigned to a special counsel for
investigation.

On June 20, 1958, while the investigation was still in progress,
Manuel Sagales filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Bulacan a
complaint charging petitioners with the same acts as those covered by
the complaint he lodged with the office of the provincial fiscal the
investigation of which has not yet been terminated.

On August 20, 1958, petitioners filed a motion to quash alleging
that the justice of the peace court had no jurisdiction over the case
inasmuch as it was initiated by a complaint and not by an information.
The petition was denied. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was also denied.

On November 14, 1958, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan alleging lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the justice of the peace court in that it assumed
jurisdiction to act on the complaint filed by Manuel Sagales despite
the fact that the provincial fiscal with whom he first lodged the
charge has not yet finished his investigation or has not yet acted
thereon, but the court found both the petition as well as the prayer
for preliminary injunction not well-taken and dismissed the same. Hence
the present appeal.

There is no merit in the appeal. It appears that the charge which
respondent Manuel Sagales preferred against petitioners before the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan is to the effect that they confederated in
altering and removing the boundary mark or monument of his land which
constitutes a violation of Article 813 of the Revised Penal Code
penalized with arresto menor, or a fine not exceeding P100, or both. The act is alleged to have been committed on April 23, 1958.

Sometime in the latter part of the same month, Sagales lodged the
complaint with the fiscal with a view to the prosecution of the
offenders. The complaint was given due course and was assigned to a
special counsel for investigation. Apparently there was some delay in
the investigation, and impatient for such inaction, Sagales took the
initiative in filing a complaint covering the same charge with the
Justice of the Peace Court of Bulacan. He filed the complaint on June
20, 1958.

It should be noted, in this connection, that the act complained of
which is a slight offense, prescribe in two months (Article 90, Revised
Penal Code.) Since the alleged act was committed on April 23, 1958 and
respondent lodged the complaint with the justice of the peace court on
June 20, 1958, the implication is clear that the two-month period for
the prosecution of the crime was fast running out which demanded quick
action on his part. He cannot therefore be blamed for taking the action
he has taken which he did merely to protect his right.

There is nothing in the law which grants to a provincial fiscal
exclusive right to investigate a charge that is submitted to him for
action. Of course, it is his duty under the law to undertake the
investigation during the period his situation may permit. But when he
is guilty of inaction or acts in a manner that may jeopardize the right
of a complainant or offended party, there is nothing that may prevent
the latter from taking action to protect his right. To hold otherwise
would place his fate at the mercy of the prosecuting official. Such is
the situation of respondent Sagales. He took the action he deemed
proper so that his grievance against his offenders may not remain
without vindication by the lapse of time. For this solicitude, he
cannot be blamed. We find no error in the action taken by the trial
court.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioners.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.