Salcedo v. Liwag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Narciso D. Salcedo, in his capacity as 2nd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Sulu, investigated an incident where Sgt. Andres A. Lopez was allegedly arrested, handcuffed, and manhandled to unconsciousness. Finding sufficient merit, petitioner filed three informations against Lt. Romeo M. Reciña, et al., members of the Philippine Constabulary, for assault upon an agent or person in authority, less serious physical injuries, and arbitrary detention. Procedural History: The cases were repeatedly postponed by the Justice of the Peace Court of Jolo at the instance of the accused. Accused Lt. Reciña wrote to the Chief Prosecutor requesting petitioner's replacement due to alleged over-enthusiasm. Subsequently, attempts were made by the Chief Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice to have petitioner Salcedo relieved from prosecuting the cases, with petitioner refusing to yield, asserting his right to prosecute unless legally disqualified. The Justice of the Peace Court had previously ruled that petitioner was not disqualified. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to prohibit the respondents from carrying out their orders disauthorizing him from prosecuting the criminal cases. He argued that the Secretary of Justice's power of control and supervision does not authorize interference with a prosecutor's discretion in handling a case pending trial, that the prosecutor's power emanates from statute and not solely from the Secretary's control, and that disqualification is a matter for the court, not the Secretary of Justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the Secretary of Justice has the power to relieve a public prosecutor from handling a case already filed in court, despite the prosecutor not being legally disqualified. Whether the power of control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice over public prosecutors extends to interfering with the prosecution of cases pending trial.
Ruling
The petition is granted. Respondents are hereby enjoined from carrying out their orders of relieving petitioner from prosecuting the cases herein involved. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Secretary of Justice's power of control and supervision over provincial fiscals is limited to administrative matters and does not extend to interfering with the prosecution of cases already filed in court. Once a fiscal has investigated a case and filed the necessary information, he is duty-bound to prosecute it to its final termination. Attempts to relieve a fiscal from such duty, especially when motivated by reasons not compatible with the sound administration of justice, are considered an undue encroachment on the fiscal's official and quasi-judicial function. The Court found that the persistent demands for petitioner's relief, coupled with political pressure from various officials, created an impression that the purpose of his relief was not in line with the interest of justice, thus justifying his refusal to yield. On Issue 2: The Court reiterated that while the Secretary of Justice has general supervision and control over provincial fiscals as provided in Section 83 in relation to Section 79[C] of the Revised Administrative Code, this power can only extend to administrative matters. It cannot conflict with or encroach upon the performance by the fiscal of his duties in connection with the prosecution of a case that he has investigated and acted upon. The Court emphasized that to allow such interference would subvert the judicial duties of a fiscal to the detriment of public interest. The fiscal should be given wide latitude in order that the best interest of justice may be accomplished, especially when he is not suffering from any legal disqualification as determined by the court.
Main Doctrine
The Secretary of Justice's general supervision and control over provincial fiscals, as provided by law, is confined to administrative matters and does not grant authority to interfere with the prosecution of cases already filed in court. A fiscal, having investigated and filed an information, is duty-bound to prosecute the case to its final termination unless legally disqualified, and attempts to relieve a fiscal for reasons other than legal disqualification, especially when politically motivated, are considered an undue encroachment on the fiscal's official and quasi-judicial function.