People v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The private respondents, members of the police force of Maramag, Bukidnon, were charged with the unlawful killing of a detention prisoner, Jesus Majadora Berzabal, while in their custody. Sgt. Pepito G. Gasendo filed a complaint for homicide against them, alleging that they conspired and confederated together, with intent to kill, to assault, box, kick, and twist the victim's neck, fingers, and arms, causing multiple injuries, contusions, and bone fractures that resulted in his death. Procedural History: On February 12, 1973, the respondent judge ordered the provincial fiscal's office to conduct a preliminary investigation on the complaint, as none had been made previously. The inquest fiscal issued subpoenas to the accused, along with copies of the complaint and affidavits of witnesses. Only two accused submitted counter-affidavits; the four private respondents requested that the investigation be resolved. On March 26, 1973, the inquest fiscal filed an information for murder, alleging conspiracy, treachery, cruelty, taking advantage of public position, employment of means to weaken defense, and abuse of superior strength. The fiscal certified that a proper preliminary investigation was conducted, the accused were informed of the complaint and evidence, and given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. On April 18, 1973, the private respondents filed a motion to quash, arguing that the fiscal erred in charging them with murder without a new preliminary investigation, citing Bandiala v. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. On May 2, 1973, the respondent judge ordered the fiscal to conduct another preliminary investigation after requiring the amendment of the complaint from homicide to murder. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, questioning the applicability of the Bandiala ruling and seeking to annul the order of the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in ordering the provincial fiscal to conduct another preliminary investigation after the fiscal had already filed an information for murder based on a complaint for homicide. Whether the ruling in Bandiala v. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental is applicable to the present case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the order of the respondent judge dated May 2, 1973, and ordered the respondent judge to set the criminal case for arraignment and trial. The Court held that the Bandiala case is inapposite to the case at bar.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Bandiala v. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental: The Court held that the Bandiala case is inapposite. In Bandiala, the fiscal withheld evidence during the preliminary investigation and later used it to elevate the charge without a new preliminary investigation. In contrast, in the present case, no preliminary investigation had been conducted when the complaint was filed, and the respondent judge directed the fiscal to conduct one. The inquest fiscal complied with Presidential Decree No. 77, which governs preliminary investigations. Furthermore, the exhibits presented before the inquest fiscal provided ample basis for the allegations of qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the information for murder, such as treachery, cruelty, taking advantage of public position, employment of means to weaken the defense, and abuse of superior strength. The fiscal was therefore not faulted for filing an information for murder. On the respondent judge's order for another preliminary investigation: The Court found that the respondent judge erred in ordering another preliminary investigation. The initial complaint was for homicide, but the preliminary investigation conducted by the inquest fiscal, in compliance with PD 77, revealed sufficient evidence to support a charge of murder. The accused were given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence, and the fiscal's conclusion that probable cause existed for murder was supported by the evidence presented. Therefore, the fiscal acted within his authority in filing the information for murder, and the judge's order to conduct another preliminary investigation was unwarranted.
Main Doctrine
A fiscal may file an information for murder, even if the initial complaint was for homicide, provided that the preliminary investigation, conducted in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 77, reveals sufficient basis for the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged, and the accused were afforded an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.