Alberto v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eligio Orbita, a Provincial Guard, was prosecuted for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly allowing detention prisoner Pablo Denaque to escape due to carelessness and unjustifiable negligence. During the trial, the defense presented a note purportedly from Governor Armando Cledera to Jose Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden, requesting five men to work on a fence at the Governor's leased guest house. The defense argued that this note facilitated the escape and that Cledera and Esmeralda were equally guilty. Procedural History: The defense filed a motion to amend the information to include Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants. The respondent Judge, finding that an investigation was needed, ordered the Fiscal's office to conduct a further reinvestigation within 15 days, considering Articles 156, 223, and 224 of the Revised Penal Code. A reinvestigation was set, but the accused Eligio Orbita did not appear, nor was the note (Exhibit 2) produced. The Fiscal manifested that no prima facie case existed against Cledera and Esmeralda. The accused then filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that the information be amended based on the evidence already adduced. The respondent Court issued an order directing the amendment of the information to include the author of Exhibit 2 and those who carried out the orders, considering Articles 156, 223, and 224 of the Penal Code. The Fiscal's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the orders directing the amendment of the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed an error in ordering the fiscal to amend the information to include Governor Armando Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants, considering the fiscal's discretion. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the orders dated January 26, 1970, and February 18, 1970, directing the amendment of the information. The respondent Judge or any other judge acting in his stead was directed to proceed with the trial of the case against Eligio Orbita.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the fiscal's discretion to amend the information: The Court held that the fiscal, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to support the allegations thereof. While this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, it would be embarrassing for the prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case when he is in no position to do so because, in his opinion, he does not have the necessary evidence to secure a conviction. The Court stated that the better procedure would be to appeal the fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice and/or ask for a special prosecutor. The Court found that the Fiscal had not capriciously or whimsically refused to prosecute Cledera and Esmeralda, especially since a reinvestigation, ordered by the respondent Judge himself, failed to elicit additional facts or evidence. On the sufficiency of evidence against Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda: The Court found no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda. The order to amend the information was based on the facts that Pablo Denaque was working at the Governor's guest house by virtue of an order from the Governor (Exhibit 2) which was given to Lt. Esmeralda, and that the province was leasing the guest house. However, the Court noted that neither Governor Cledera nor Lt. Esmeralda was charged or entrusted with the duty of conveying the detainee. Furthermore, it was the accused Orbita who handpicked the group of prisoners to work at the Governor's. The Court also clarified that Governor Cledera, as governor, and Jose Esmeralda, as assistant provincial warden, could not be prosecuted under Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with removing prisoners from jails or penal establishments by outsiders using violence, intimidation, or bribery, or by other means. They were also not liable under Article 223 (Conniving with or consenting to evasion) as there was no evidence of connivance. Crucially, the Court found no evidence to warrant prosecution under Article 224 (Infidelity in the custody of prisoner by negligence) as the respondent Judge himself noted that any negligence must be attributed to the officer charged with the custody and guarding of the prisoner, which was the accused Orbita.
Main Doctrine
The fiscal, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to support the allegations thereof. While this power is subject to judicial review, it would be embarrassing for the prosecuting attorney to be compelled to prosecute a case when he is in no position to do so because, in his opinion, he does not have the necessary evidence to secure a conviction. The better procedure would be to appeal the fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice and/or ask for a special prosecutor.