THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ONG ENG, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT. UY CHIN CHI, CHUN SIN, TAN TUA (ALIAS TAN Y CUAN), TIN CO AND LIM TAN, DEFE…

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal jointly entered in this case and another bearing G. R. No. 30992^[1] of this court.

The appeal is taken by the offended party, who assigns as error of
the lower court the dismissal of the case upon motion of the fiscal
without sufficient ground.

Said motion of the fiscal is as follows:

“1. That the undersigned has always opposed the
dismissal of either of these two cases, and has given his tacit consent
to the date set for a joint hearing thereof by Judge Paredes, in the bona fide belief
that such procedure adopted by said judge is not anomalous and
irregular; and, furthermore, that the interested parties were agreeable
to said hearing;

“2. That judging by the order issued
yesterday, this honorable court is not agreeable that these two cases
be tried jointly as ordered by said Judge Paredes;

“3. That
according to the tenor of said order, it appears that this honorable
court is not disposed to designate which of the two cases is to be
tried first;

“4. That the undersigned is of the humble
opinion that the setting of a date for the hearing of the two cases is
incumbent upon the clerk of this honorable court,

“Wherefore,
and in conformity with the aforesaid order of this honorable court, the
undersigned respectfully prays for the dismissal of both cases in order
to make a reinvestigation thereof for the purposes of presenting only
one criminal action for the crime resulting from said reinvestigation.”
(Pages 117 and 118, original record.)

The attorneys of the herein appellant objected to this petition and
presented their respective pleadings (see pages 121-123, 126-129,
original record).

The court resolved the question by entering the following order which is the object of the present appeal:

“Considering that the informations in these two
cases are nothing more than the result of two absolutely contradictory
and irreconcilable versions of one and the same incident;

“Considering
that the provincial fiscal cannot conduct the prosecution in these two
cases, inasmuch as it is evident that he cannot sustain and try to
convince the court in the aforesaid two cases of his absolutely
antagonistic theories; and

“Considering that the People of
the Philippine Islands, plaintiff .in these two cases, cannot sustain
two prosecutions which are incompatible with each other;

“Wherefore,
the court hereby grants the motion of the prosecuting officer praying
for the provisional dismissal of these two cases to enable him to
institute a single criminal action for the crime resulting from his
reinvestigation.” (Pages 130 and 131, original record.)

We believe that the fiscal had sufficient grounds to ask the court
for the dismissal of the two cases for the purpose of reinvestigating
them and to take such action as may be prompted by the result of the
reinvestigation.

Our conclusion is not exactly based upon the facts and opinions set
forth in the fiscal’s motion, but rather on his object in asking for
the dismissal, namely, to investigate the case again and thereafter
take such action as the interests of justice may require; such an
attitude indicated his uncertainty as to which of the two cases was to
be prosecuted.

Although this court held in the case of People vs. Mediavilla (52 Phil, 94) that:

“CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; FILING OF DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS
AGAINST GUILTY AND OFFENDED PARTIES.—The filing of an information
against some defendants for the murder of an individual, and then
another information for frustrated homicide and less serious physical
injuries against said individual and others, because said individual
had fired three shots at one of his assailants with his revolver, and
because another of the defendants, the accused in the instant case, had
wounded said assailant, does not disqualify the prosecuting attorney
from sustaining said charges, because the accused in the one may be the
offended parties in the other and vice versa, nor does it violate
professional ethics which forbids an attorney to represent adverse
interests, since in both cases the prosecuting attorney represents the
public,” nevertheless, when the provincial fiscal, in view of the facts
of the cases, apprehends that it would be an absurdity on his part to
conduct both prosecutions, said officer, being responsible for the
prosecution of criminal cases (section 1681, Administrative Code; U. S.
vs. Reyes, 20 Phil., 510; and U. S. vs.
Despabiladeras and Laxamana, 32 Phil., 442), has a right to investigate
the cases more thoroughly in order the better to conform his action and
attitude therein to the real facts and to the dictates and requirements
of justice and the public interest.

And in granting said motion of the provincial fiscal, the court did
no more than recognize the great responsibility devolving on him and
the rights it had in helping him in the better performance of his
duties.

We find no error in the order appealed from, and the same is hereby
affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] People vs. Uy Tiam Su, p. 547, post.