Sierra v. Lopez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Aurelio M. Sierra filed several cases before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for Misrepresentation through Deceit and Syndicated Large Scale Fraud in Land Titling with Conspiracy, Land Grabbing, Falsification of Public Document and Economic Sabotage. These cases were assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Alexander T. Yap, who allowed respondents to submit their counter-affidavits subscribed and sworn to before a Pasig Prosecutor, and did not require the simultaneous presence of the parties. Sierra asked for Yap's inhibition. The cases were re-raffled to ACP Marlo Campanilla, who also did not require simultaneous presence, leading to another inhibition request. The cases were again re-raffled to ACP Armando Velasco, who handled them similarly. City Prosecutor Jhosep Y. Lopez and 1st ACP Eufrocino Sulla affirmed the prosecutors' actions. Procedural History: On April 26, 2007, Sierra filed a complaint with the Supreme Court for dereliction of duty and gross ignorance of the law against City Prosecutor Lopez, 1st ACP Sulla, ACP Yap, ACP Campanilla, and ACP Velasco. The Supreme Court required the respondents to comment on the complaint, which they did, asserting they handled the cases properly and in accordance with law. The Petition: Sierra raised three questions of law: (1) whether parties must appear together before the investigating prosecutor during preliminary investigation; (2) whether counter-affidavits must be sworn only before the investigating prosecutor; and (3) whether the investigating prosecutor erred in denying the request for clarificatory questioning.
Issue(s)
Whether the parties must appear together before the investigating prosecutor during preliminary investigation. Whether the counter-affidavits of the respondents should be sworn to only before the investigating prosecutor. Whether the investigating prosecutor erred in denying the request of the complainant for clarificatory questioning.
Ruling
The complaint is DENIED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of simultaneous appearance of parties: The Court held that preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court does not require the simultaneous presence of the complainant and respondent. The procedure is ordinarily conducted through the submission of affidavits and supporting documents, and the exchange of pleadings. The rule's purpose is to prevent respondents from thwarting prosecution through hiding or dilatory tactics. The Court cited Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan to support the principle that confrontation is not imperative as long as efforts to reach the respondent were made and an opportunity to controvert evidence is accorded. On the issue of where counter-affidavits must be sworn: The Court ruled that it is not necessary for a counter-affidavit to be sworn before the investigating prosecutor himself. It can be sworn before another prosecutor or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, as provided in paragraph (a) of Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This provision allows affidavits to be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oaths, or a notary public. On the issue of denying clarificatory questioning: The Court held that the investigating prosecutors did not abuse their discretion in denying the complainant's request for clarificatory questioning. Under paragraph (e) of Section 3, Rule 112, the conduct of clarificatory questioning is discretionary upon the prosecutor. The Court reiterated its ruling in Webb v. De Leon that the decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator alone.
Main Doctrine
The procedure for preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court does not require the simultaneous presence of the complainant and respondent, nor does it mandate that counter-affidavits must be sworn before the investigating prosecutor. The conduct of clarificatory questioning is also discretionary.