City Fiscal v. Espina
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: An information for murder was filed by the City Fiscal of Tacloban against Eduardo Tesado and Luthgardo Niedo, both members of the Philippine Constabulary, in the Regional Trial Court of the Eighth Judicial Region. The accused, through their counsel, invoked Presidential Decree No. 1850, which vests exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Integrated National Police in courts martial. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, after due hearing, issued an order dismissing the information and referring the case to the courts martial of Region 8, recalling the warrant of arrest. The City Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction and that P.D. 1850 was invalidated by the New Constitution. This motion was denied by the trial court. 3. The Petition: The City Fiscal of Tacloban filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the trial court's orders and compel the trial court to take cognizance of the criminal case. The petition questions the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1850. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petition should be denied as the City Fiscal lacks the authority to file such a petition before the Supreme Court, as this role is reserved for the Solicitor General.
Issue(s)
Whether the City Fiscal of Tacloban has the authority to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. Whether Presidential Decree No. 1850, vesting exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces and the Integrated National Police in courts martial, was invalidated by the New Constitution.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The City Fiscal has no authority to file the petition before the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the City Fiscal to file the petition: The Court held that under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, all criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal before the trial courts. However, when such criminal actions are brought to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, it is the Solicitor General who must represent the People of the Philippines, not the fiscal. The Solicitor General correctly questioned the personality of the petitioner to institute this petition, as only the Solicitor General can bring or defend such actions on behalf of the Republic or the People of the Philippines. Actions not initiated by the Solicitor General should be summarily dismissed, citing Republic vs. Partisala. Furthermore, the petition was filed without the authority of the Secretary of Justice and against his instructions, as indicated by the disagreement of the Undersecretary of Justice. The petition was also improperly brought in the name of the petitioner instead of the People of the Philippines and lacked the required certified true copies of the questioned orders. On the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1850: While the City Fiscal argued that P.D. No. 1850 was invalidated by the New Constitution, the Court did not reach the substantive issue of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed on a procedural ground, namely, the lack of authority of the City Fiscal to file the petition before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the question of whether P.D. No. 1850 remains valid or was superseded by the Constitution was not passed upon by the Court in this instance.
Main Doctrine
A City Fiscal has no authority to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court on behalf of the People of the Philippines; such authority rests solely with the Solicitor General.