Arkoncel v. Court of First Instance
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Casimiro V. Arkoncel, a lawyer and officer-in-charge of the Basilan Branch of the Board of Liquidators, was charged with qualified theft of 5,000 coconuts from the land of Gerardo Esperat in the Court of First Instance of Basilan City. The information was filed by the City Fiscal after certifying that a preliminary investigation was conducted and that the accused were duly subpoenaed but failed to appear. Procedural History: When Arkoncel appeared in court and was about to be arrested, he requested to settle the case or be allowed to go home to prepare a bail bond. Instead of posting bail, Arkoncel filed a special civil action for prohibition to enjoin his prosecution. The Petition: Arkoncel alleged denial of due process for not being subpoenaed to the preliminary investigation. He claimed his prosecution was an act of harassment while performing his duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution of Casimiro V. Arkoncel for qualified theft can be enjoined by a special civil action for prohibition. Whether Arkoncel was denied due process during the preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed with treble costs against the petitioner. The prosecution of Arkoncel is not enjoined.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of enjoining prosecution: The Court held that this case falls within the general rule that injunction or prohibition does not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution. This general rule is based on the principle that the accused has an adequate remedy at law by establishing as a defense during the prosecution that he did not commit the act charged, or that the statute is void, and by taking an appeal in case of conviction. Public interest also requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society. The Court found that the case does not fall within the recognized exceptions where a prosecution may be enjoined, such as for the orderly administration of justice, to prevent oppressive use of the law, to avoid multiplicity of actions, to afford protection to constitutional rights, or where the statute is unconstitutional. On the issue of denial of due process: The Court found Arkoncel's assertion of denial of due process to be incorrect. The records showed that Arkoncel was issued two subpoenas dated September 13 and 21, 1966, requiring his appearance at the preliminary investigation, but he failed to appear. The hearing set for September 29, 1966, was postponed at the instance of Atty. Engracio S. Bautista, a land investigator who presumably appeared for Arkoncel, to allow Atty. Bautista to obtain data from the Board of Liquidators' Manila office. Despite the postponement for three weeks, Arkoncel and Atty. Bautista did not contact the Fiscal, leading to the filing of the information in October 1966. The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation may be dispensed with entirely without infringing the constitutional right to a fair trial, and that it is sufficient if the accused was afforded an opportunity to be heard, which Arkoncel waived by his non-appearance. Furthermore, Arkoncel failed to exhaust his remedies by not filing a motion to quash or asking for a reinvestigation in the lower court before coming to the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for prohibition will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution, as the accused has an adequate remedy at law by raising defenses during the trial and through appeal, unless the prosecution falls under specific exceptions such as denial of due process or oppressive use of the law.