Facts:

The case revolves around a prohibition proceeding filed by the petitioners, Ismael Andaya, Mila Aquio, and Chua To, against the respondents, the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Norte and First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Carlo H. Lozada. The case originated when the petitioners sought to prevent the respondents from conducting a preliminary investigation related to a complaint of falsification of a public document. The critical element at the forefront of the petitioners' argument was their assertion of a prejudicial question, grounded in a pending civil case for breach of contract against Domingo R. Alvarez, who stood as the complainant in the falsification charge. Alvarez claimed the foundation of the civil suit was a document that he alleged was forged.

The lower court initially addressed the issue but ultimately found that the argument invoking the prejudicial question was devoid of merit. The court ruled that such an objection could only be raised after the filing of

...

Facts:

Background of the Prohibition Proceeding

• Petitioners (Ismael Andaya, Mila Aquio, and Chua To) instituted the prohibition proceeding.
• The proceeding aimed to restrain the respondent fiscals—the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Norte and First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Carlo H. Lozada—from conducting a preliminary investigation on a complaint.
• The complaint accused the petitioners of falsification of a public document.

Alleged Prejudicial Question and Pending Civil Suit

• Petitioners contended that a prejudicial question existed due to a pending civil suit for breach of contract involving damages.
• The civil suit, filed against Domingo R. Alvarez, alleged that the document which formed the basis of the purported cause of action was a forgery.
• The petition’s reliance on this pending civil suit was intended to serve as a bar to the fiscal’s preliminary investigation.

Prior Dismissals and Procedural Background

• Petitioners pointed out that the complaint for falsification had been previously dismissed by a justice of the peace.
• Despite the earlier dismissal, the complaint was subsequently filed anew with the respondent Provincial Fiscal.
• This sequence of events formed part of the petitioners’ argument for the non-prosecution based on the prejudicial question.

Assignment and Impartiality Concerns

• The petition noted that the respondent First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Lozada, who had earlier prosecuted the dismissed municipal case, was assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation.
• Concerns were raised about possible bias or predisposition on the part of respondent Lozada, owing to his prior involvement in the case.
• The petitioners stressed the necessity that any officer tasked with such responsibilities must be free from any appearance of partiality.

Issue:

Legal Timing and Forum for Raising Prejudicial Questions

• Whether a prejudicial question—however meritorious—may be raised during the period of preliminary investigation.
• Determination of the correct time and proper forum for raising the issue (i.e., after the filing of informations rather than before).

Impact of Prior Dismissals on Subsequent Investigations

• Whether the dismissal of the charge by a municipal court (or a justice of the peace) precludes the Provincial Fiscal from conducting his own preliminary investigation.
• An evaluation of the legal effect of such dismissals on the initiation of parallel or subsequent criminal proceedings.

Impartiality in the Assignment of the Preliminary Investigation

• Whether the assignment of respondent First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Lozada to the preliminary investigation creates an appearance of bias.
• Consideration of how prior involvement in the case may undermine the objectivity required under the doctrine of impartiality.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)