Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan v. Dollete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Several persons were charged with "Offending the Religious Feeling" under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code in the Justice of the Peace Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan. The complaint alleged that the accused disturbed a religious ceremony of the Iglesia Ni Cristo by making noise, shouting derogatory words, and stoning the house where the ceremony was held. The Justice of the Peace conducted a preliminary investigation, found probable cause, and elevated the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Procedural History: Upon receiving the record, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan summoned the offended parties and prosecution witnesses, represented by a private prosecutor, to testify for his own investigation. The offended parties and private prosecutor refused to testify, reserving their testimonies for the trial. Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the case. The respondent Judge denied the motion and ordered the Fiscal to file the corresponding information within five days. The Fiscal's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent appeal was also denied on the ground that the order was interlocutory. The Petition: The Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan filed a petition for certiorari to annul the order of the respondent Judge denying his motion to dismiss and ordering him to file the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal. Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Assistant Provincial Fiscal to file the information within five days. Whether the order denying the motion to dismiss is appealable.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted in part and denied in part. The order of the respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss is upheld, but the order directing the Assistant Provincial Fiscal to file the information within five days is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to dismiss: The Court held that the Assistant Provincial Fiscal has the right to conduct his own investigation to convince himself of the sufficiency of the evidence after a case has been elevated from the Justice of the Peace Court. The offended parties and prosecution witnesses have a corresponding duty to submit to this investigation. However, the Court affirmed that the respondent Judge acted within his discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The Judge may deny such a motion if the record of the Justice of the Peace Court shows sufficient evidence to sustain the prosecution, or if the Judge is otherwise not satisfied with the reason for dismissal, as stated in U.S. v. Barredo. The denial of the motion to dismiss was therefore proper. On the order to file the information within five days: The Court found that while the denial of the motion to dismiss was proper, the order compelling the Fiscal to file the information within a specific, short period was an error. It is embarrassing for a prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case when he believes he lacks sufficient evidence or is unconvinced of the case's merits. The Court suggested that the Judge could order the offended parties to submit to an investigation or request the Department of Justice to designate an Acting Provincial Fiscal if the petitioner failed to file the information within a reasonable time. On the appealability of the order: The Court reiterated that an order denying a motion to dismiss is discretionary and interlocutory in character, and therefore, not appealable. The attempt by the petitioner to appeal this order was incorrect.
Main Doctrine
A fiscal has the right to conduct his own investigation to determine the sufficiency of evidence before filing an information, and prosecution witnesses, including offended parties, have a corresponding duty to submit to such investigation. However, a judge has the discretion to deny a motion to dismiss, even if filed by the fiscal, if the record shows sufficient evidence or if the judge is otherwise not satisfied with the reason for dismissal. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable.