Solidum v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Criminal Case No. 47152, where respondent Jaime Hernandez, as Secretary of Finance, was charged with violating Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge alleged that Hernandez, having acquired shares in Avegon Construction and Electrical Co., Inc., improperly granted tax exemptions and acted favorably on the corporation's requests while presiding over meetings of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank, which granted the corporation substantial dollar allocations. 2. Procedural History: Respondent Hernandez filed a motion to quash the amended information, arguing that his stock ownership did not constitute a prohibited interest under Article 216, that he had no interest on the material dates, and that Article 216 was inapplicable to department heads due to a constitutional provision. The trial court denied this motion, stating that the issues could not be resolved without evidence and reserving judgment on the constitutional question. Hernandez then petitioned the Court of Appeals for prohibition and/or mandamus, alleging the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of prohibition, annulling the trial court's orders and halting further proceedings. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Judge Arsenio Solidum and Fiscal Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., sought review by the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in assuming jurisdiction, in holding Article 216 inoperative as to department heads, and in issuing a writ of prohibition when appeal was the available remedy. The Supreme Court prioritized the third assignment of error, finding that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ of prohibition because the trial judge had not acted arbitrarily and Hernandez had an adequate remedy by appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court lifted the writ of prohibition and remanded the case for continuation of the suspended proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition. Whether Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code was rendered pro tanto inoperative by Article VII, Section 11, paragraph 2 of the Philippine Constitution as regards department heads. Whether a writ of prohibition was the proper remedy, or if appeal in due time was the appropriate recourse.
Ruling
The Supreme Court lifted the writ of prohibition issued by the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the lower court for continuation of proceedings. The Court held that the respondent judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as the issues raised required the presentation of evidence. Furthermore, appeal in due time was deemed the adequate and available remedy, rendering prohibition improper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of prohibition: The Court reiterated the profound doctrine that prohibitive writs are issued only upon a showing of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It emphasized that for grave abuse of discretion to prosper, it must be demonstrated as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power. The respondent judge's order denying the motion to quash was found to reflect a deep sense of justice and mature exercise of discretion by recognizing that the fundamental questions raised could not be properly decided without evidence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ of prohibition. On the availability of other remedies: The Court found no exigency that would justify disregarding the time-honored rule that prohibition is granted only when no other sufficient remedy is available. The observation of the City Fiscal that appeal in due time from the decision that the appellant Court might render in the case was the obvious and only remedy available to the appellee was deemed valid and well-taken. Since the respondent had another and complete remedy at law, either by appeal or otherwise, the issuance of the writ of prohibition by the Court of Appeals was unwarranted. On the substantive issues (Article 216 RPC vs. Constitution): The Court deemed it premature to rule on the substantive issues concerning the applicability of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code to department heads and its potential conflict with the Constitution, as these questions could not be properly decided without the presentation of evidence. The denial of the motion to quash was based on this procedural necessity, not on a definitive ruling on the merits of the constitutional question. The Court's primary concern was the procedural propriety of the prohibition writ, not the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused.
Main Doctrine
A writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy to annul orders of a lower court denying a motion to quash if the issues raised therein, particularly those involving the applicability of a penal statute and its potential conflict with the Constitution, require presentation of evidence for proper resolution. In such cases, appeal after trial is the adequate remedy.