Bautista v. City Fiscal of Dagupan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from a complaint filed by petitioner Juan Bautista and Nenita Marquez against Conchita Estrada, Avelina Baniqued, and Federico Bautista for estafa through falsification of public document. The complaint alleged that the respondents falsified a deed of sale concerning land previously donated to Bautista and Marquez. The alleged falsification involved forging Marcela Bautista's signature on the deed of sale. Procedural History: Initially, the complaint was dismissed by the Assistant City Fiscal of Dagupan for lack of prima facie evidence. Petitioner Bautista did not appeal this resolution but instead filed a new complaint with the City Court of Dagupan. The City Court found probable cause and ordered the arrest of the accused. However, the City Fiscal, after a reinvestigation, filed a motion to dismiss, believing there was insufficient evidence. The City Court denied this motion. Subsequently, the City Fiscal manifested his inability to prosecute. This led to a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance, which ordered the fiscal to file the information. The City Fiscal appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the petition for mandamus. This petition for review by certiorari is now before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, praying that the City Fiscal of Dagupan be directed to file the corresponding information and prosecute the case. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the fiscal's discretion to dismiss a case is not absolute and that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the fiscal's refusal to prosecute despite the City Court's finding of probable cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the City Fiscal can be compelled by mandamus to file a criminal information when he is not convinced that there is a prima facie case to warrant prosecution.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals, dated November 5, 1981, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that under Section 4, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. Citing Alberto vs. de la Cruz, the Court reaffirmed that a fiscal is under no compulsion to file an information if he is not convinced that the evidence at hand is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that an offense was committed. The Court emphasized that it would be embarrassing to compel a prosecutor to proceed with a case when he believes he lacks the necessary evidence to secure a conviction. Even after a criminal case is forwarded by an inferior court, the fiscal has the power and duty to independently investigate the facts and determine if there is at least prima facie evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. If the fiscal believes the evidence is insufficient, the correct procedure is to submit a motion for dismissal to the court where the case is pending. The remedy for a complainant when a fiscal refuses to file a case is to appeal the decision to the Ministry of Justice or seek the designation of a special prosecutor, not to seek a writ of mandamus to compel a discretionary act.
Main Doctrine
A 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 to be compelled to prosecute a case when the fiscal is not in a position to do so due to lack of evidence or conviction in the merits of the case. The proper remedy in such a situation is to appeal the fiscal's decision to the Ministry of Justice or ask for a special prosecutor.