Enerio v. Orcullo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Benedicto E. Enerio against City Fiscal Jovencio S. Orcullo and Assistant City Fiscal Miguel C. Relampagos. The complaint alleged that the respondents committed malicious, unlawful, and unprofessional acts by filing two identical and groundless libel informations against Atty. Enerio. Specifically, the complaint asserted that the respondents falsely narrated facts in the informations, claiming that letters sent by Atty. Enerio to the Acting Register of Deeds and the Clerk of Court were 'open letters' and had been read by many persons. 2. Procedural History: The respondents, City Fiscal Orcullo and Assistant City Fiscal Relampagos, filed a joint answer explaining that Bienvenida Sarce and Atty. Teodoro Nazareno had filed libel complaints against Atty. Enerio in December 1971. After a preliminary investigation and reinvestigation, Assistant City Fiscal Relampagos recommended the filing of informations for libel, which were approved by City Fiscal Orcullo and filed on August 21, 1972. Atty. Enerio was arraigned, and he filed various motions, including a motion to quash, all of which were denied as the preliminary investigations were found to be conducted regularly and in accordance with law. The libel cases were eventually dismissed by the court based on affidavits of desistance from the complainants, with Atty. Enerio's consent. Subsequently, Atty. Enerio filed an additional charge alleging that the respondents submitted a falsified letter-complaint as the basis for the preliminary investigation. 3. The Petition: The complaint, initially filed with the Supreme Court, was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General's report concluded that the respondents did not abuse their discretion in filing the libel informations, as the determination of whether sufficient evidence existed to warrant prosecution involved the exercise of their discretion. The report also noted that similar charges previously filed by Atty. Enerio with the Department of Justice were dismissed by the President. Regarding the additional charge about the letter-complaint's date, the Solicitor General found that the lower court had already ruled on the regularity of the preliminary investigation, and Atty. Enerio had not pursued the matter further. Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended the exoneration of the respondent fiscals, and the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, advising Atty. Enerio to be more circumspect in preferring charges.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents committed malicious prosecution and abuse of discretion in filing the informations for libel against the complainant. Whether the respondents committed falsehood or malpractice regarding the submission and dating of Bienvenida Sarce's letter-complaint.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated the respondents City Fiscal Jovencio S. Orcullo and Asst. City Fiscal Miguel C. Relampagos. The Court found no evidence that the respondents abused their discretion or used the law in a vindictive or oppressive manner. The Court also found that the complainant failed to substantiate his charges and advised him to be more circumspect in preferring complaints.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malicious prosecution and abuse of discretion in filing libel informations: The Court held that it is the sworn duty of prosecuting officers to file charges when evidence shows responsibility for an offense. The determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant prosecution involves the exercise of discretion. The Court cited Zulueta vs. Nicolas to emphasize that a fiscal is not bound by the complainant's opinion and has discretion in filing informations. The respondents' belief that the letters were libelous, 'open letters,' and read by many persons was grounded on facts gathered during their investigation. The Court stated that the purpose of the administrative investigation was not to determine the truth of these facts but whether the respondents abused their discretion. Based on the allegations and evidence, the Court found no abuse of discretion in filing the informations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant had previously filed similar charges for harassment and oppression with the Department of Justice, which were dismissed by the President of the Philippines. The Court also highlighted that the trial court had previously found the preliminary investigations to be conducted regularly and properly in accordance with Republic Act No. 5180, and that the complainant was not denied due process. The dismissal of the cases by the trial court was based on affidavits of desistance and hostile witnesses, not on a finding of lack of probable cause by the prosecution. On the issue of falsehood regarding Bienvenida Sarce's letter-complaint: The Court addressed the complainant's claim that Annex "A" was not submitted during the preliminary investigation and was backdated. The respondents explained that after an initial unsworn letter was received, they advised the complainant to submit a sworn letter, which she did. The Court noted a discrepancy between an original letter and a xerox copy regarding a date notation, but stated that the original should prevail. Crucially, the Court pointed out that the complainant had the opportunity to question the regularity of the preliminary investigation in the Court of First Instance, which he did. The lower court, in its resolution, explicitly stated that the preliminary investigation was "properly and regularly conducted and proceeded upon in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 5180" and that the complainant was not denied due process. The complainant did not pursue the matter to higher courts, thus forfeiting his right to question the regularity of the investigation. The Solicitor General's report concluded that the respondents proceeded deliberately and with due regard to the complainant's rights, and that the informations were filed only after due and proper investigation. The complainant failed to substantiate his charges, leading to the recommendation for dismissal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of informations for libel by fiscals, based on their investigation and exercise of discretion, does not constitute malicious prosecution or abuse of discretion, especially when the preliminary investigation was found to be regular and proper by the trial court, and prior administrative charges on similar grounds were dismissed.