Aquino v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from an information filed by Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino for estafa through falsification of official and/or public documents. This charge stemmed from a resurvey and subdivision of a parcel of registered land in Muntinlupa, Rizal, and the subsequent approval of related plans and technical descriptions by officials of the Land Registration Commission. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the information in Criminal Case No. 18425, one of the accused, Lucio Adriano, Jr., initiated a separate mandamus case (Civil Case No. 11307) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Adriano sought to compel Fiscal Aquino to include Commissioner Antonio Noblejas and others, against whom a prima facie case was allegedly found, as defendants in the original criminal case. Respondent Judge Herminio C. Mariano granted this petition for mandamus. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Fiscal Aquino seeks review by certiorari of the mandamus decision, arguing that he cannot be compelled to include Commissioner Noblejas as an accused. The petition contends that mandamus was an improper remedy, as Adriano, Jr. had a more plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by filing a motion within the original criminal case to amend the information, or by appealing to the Secretary of Justice if such a motion were denied. The Supreme Court found merit in this petition.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a fiscal to include additional accused in an information, considering the availability of other remedies and the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Whether the fiscal can be compelled to include Commissioner Antonio Noblejas as an accused in the information, and whether granting a motion to include an accused constitutes prejudging the case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED and the decision dated March 28, 1969, of respondent judge is SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus and availability of other remedies: The Court held that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy of last resort, available only when ordinary procedures are powerless. Lucio Adriano, Jr. had a more adequate and speedy remedy: a motion with Fiscal Aquino to include Commissioner Noblejas, appealable to the Secretary of Justice. This avoids multiplicity of suits and is a simpler, more efficient procedure. Before resorting to mandamus, Adriano, Jr. should have exhausted administrative remedies. The Court cited Quintero vs. Martinez, Perez v. City Mayor of Cabanatuan, Alzate v. Aldana, Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. Court of Industrial Relations, Tapales v. the President and the Board of Regents of the U.P., Mangubat v. Osmena, Baguio v. Honorable Jose Rodriguez, Pascual v. Provincial Board, Marinduque Iron Mines, etc. v. Secretary of Public Works, Alzate v. Aldaba, and Demaisip v. Court of Appeals. On compelling the inclusion of Commissioner Noblejas and prejudgment: The argument that a trial judge would be prejudging the case if he granted a motion to include an accused was dismissed. A resolution on such a motion is based on prima facie evidence, whereas a judgment of conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, granting the motion does not equate to a prejudgment of guilt.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is only available when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion filed within the criminal case to compel the fiscal to include an additional accused is a more adequate and speedy remedy than a petition for mandamus, and failure to exhaust this administrative remedy is fatal to the mandamus action.