San Diego v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for frustrated murder was filed by Assistant City Fiscal Benjamin M. Grecia with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, against several individuals, including Juancho G. Gutierrez and others, for the alleged mauling of Manuel Abella. Among those implicated were Assistant City Fiscal Modesto Obispo and Patrolman Cipriano Valeriano, who were initially designated as John Doe and Richard Doe in the information. Procedural History: The City Fiscal requested the Secretary of Justice to designate a special prosecutor due to the involvement of a member of his staff. State Prosecutor Francisco Villa was designated to assist in the investigation. Villa recommended the dismissal of the case against Obispo and Valeriano due to the victim's refusal to testify, but this was disapproved. On October 19, 1964, during the arraignment of the other defendants, Judge Lourdes P. San Diego authorized Grecia to amend the information by replacing "John Doe" and "Richard Doe" with the names "Fiscal Modesto Obispo" and "Patrolman Cipriano Valerians." Warrants for their arrest were issued. Obispo and Valeriano moved to set aside the warrants, which was denied. They then posted bail and moved to quash the information, arguing the absence of a preliminary investigation. Judge San Diego indicated she would deny the motion. The Petition: On November 2, 1964, Obispo and Valeriano filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 34826-R), seeking to annul the information and restrain Judge San Diego and Fiscal Grecia from proceeding with their arraignment and trial. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring an answer and granted a writ of preliminary injunction. Subsequently, Judge San Diego and Fiscal Grecia filed the present action with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the CA's resolution and injunction on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. Whether respondents Modesto A. Obispo and Cipriano Valeriano were entitled, as a matter of right, to a preliminary investigation before being included in the information. Whether Assistant City Fiscal Benjamin M. Grecia lost his authority to amend the information by including the respondents therein.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals, and ordered the respondents to pay the costs. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction: The Court found that the petition filed with the Court of Appeals failed to set up a cause of action. The law relevant to the subject matter, specifically the Revised Charter of Quezon City, must be considered part of the allegations of the petition. The Court of Appeals, in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, abused its discretion so gravely as to have exceeded its jurisdiction. On the right to a preliminary investigation: The Court clarified that the Constitution does not require preliminary investigations; the right thereto exists only when created by statute. When created, the absence of a preliminary investigation, if not waived, may amount to a denial of due process. However, Section 38 of the Revised Charter of Quezon City explicitly states that a defendant in a case triable only in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City "shall not be entitled as of right to preliminary investigation . . . where the Fiscal of the City, after a due investigation of the facts, shall have presented an information against him in proper form." In this case, a due investigation was conducted by the City Fiscal, and an information in proper form was filed. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to a preliminary investigation as a matter of right. On the authority of Assistant Fiscal Grecia to amend the information: The Court found the argument that Grecia lost his authority to amend the information to be manifest on the face of the petition filed with the Court of Appeals. The respondents quoted Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1198, which states that State Attorneys shall only assist or collaborate with the Provincial Fiscal or city attorney unless otherwise expressly directed by the Secretary of Justice. However, it was not alleged that State Attorney Villa was expressly directed to take over. Villa was merely designated to assist the City Fiscal, meaning the City Fiscal, and by extension Assistant Fiscal Grecia, retained control over the prosecution. The action of Assistant Fiscal Grecia in inserting the true names of the accused and the authority given by Judge San Diego were not violative of the Fundamental Law or statutes, nor did they constitute a denial of due process.
Main Doctrine
The Revised Charter of Quezon City explicitly denies the right to a preliminary investigation in cases triable only in the Court of First Instance thereof, where the prosecutor, after due investigation of the facts, has filed an information in proper form. The Court of Appeals commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it issues a writ of preliminary injunction to annul such an information.