Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6007)
Facts:
Florentino Amansec v. Hon. Eulogio F. De Guzman, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Dagupan City Branch, and Javier Pabalan, Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-6007, October 19, 1953, the Supreme Court, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court (Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.).On September 28, 1951 petitioner Florentino Amansec filed two complaints for libel in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Fabian, Pangasinan: Criminal Case No. 587 against Pio Pedrosa, Manuel V. Villareal and Joaquin Roces (from a Daily Mirror article of May 26, 1951), and Criminal Case No. 588 against Pio Pedrosa (from a Free Press article of June 2, 1951). After preliminary investigation the justice of the peace issued warrants of arrest; the accused posted bond. On December 5, 1951 the accused waived preliminary investigation; the JP forwarded the complaints to the Court of First Instance on December 6, 1951, where they were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 19286 and 19287.
Meanwhile, petitioner had been the subject of other proceedings: following a tax-examination report he prepared (April 14, 1951) criticising Pio Pedrosa, Pedrosa filed in Manila a complaint charging Amansec with falsification with libel (Criminal Case No. 15952 in the Court of First Instance of Manila). Around the same time Pedrosa was reported to have made public statements in local dailies denigrating Amansec; in response Amansec lodged the libel complaints in Pangasinan. An assistant city fiscal in Manila recommended deferral of action on Amansec’s libel complaint there, reasoning the publications were defensive declarations possibly excusing libel. Relying on that recommendation, on March 20, 1952 the Provincial Fiscal, Javier Pabalan, filed in the Pangasinan CFI a petition for temporary dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 19286 and 19287 and for cancellation of the bonds, urging suspension pending final termination of the Manila falsification-with-libel case. Petitioner objected.
On June 24, 1952 respondent Judge Eulogio F. De Guzman granted the provincial fiscal’s petition; on August 22, 1952 the court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. P...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the filing by the Provincial Fiscal of a petition for provisional dismissal and the CFI’s grant thereof proper under law?
- Should the Provincial Fiscal have filed informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 19286 and 19287 (or otherwise acted) rather than seek provisional dismissal pen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)