Facts:

The case revolves around a petition for mandamus filed by Lucio Adriano, Jr. against Benjamin H. Aquino, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, and Judge Herminio C. Mariano of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arising from Criminal Case No. 18425, entitled "The People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Cenidoza, Jose R. Baricua, Cesario B. Ong, Lucio Adriano, Jr., and Adriano Castillo." The events leading to the case unfolded on October 9, 1968, when Aquino filed an information for estafa through falsification of public documents related to a resurvey and subdivision of a registered land in Muntinlupa, Rizal. The case was assigned to Judge Pedro Revilla. Adriano, one of the defendants, petitioned for a writ of mandamus on October 27, 1968, requesting that Fiscal Aquino also include others, notably Commissioner Antonio Noblejas of the Land Registration Commission, as defendants in the info

...

Facts:

Filing of the Criminal Information

• On October 9, 1968, then Rizal Provincial Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino filed an information in the Court of First Instance at Pasig, Rizal, docketed as Criminal Case No. 18425.
• The case, titled “The People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Cenidoza, Jose R. Baricua, Cesario B. Ong, Lucio Adriano, Jr. and Adriano Castillo,” charged the defendants with estafa through the falsification of official and/or public documents.
• The criminal case arose from a dispute involving the extensive subdivision and resurvey of a registered parcel of land in Muntinlupa, Rizal, and the subsequent approval by certain Land Registration Commission officials of the revised plans and technical descriptions.

Mandamus Petition by Lucio Adriano, Jr.

• On October 27, 1968, Lucio Adriano, Jr., one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 18425, filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
• The petition sought to compel Provincial Fiscal Aquino to include additional persons—specifically those against whom a prima facie case existed as stated in his second indorsement—to the already filed information.
• Among the additional persons was Commissioner Antonio Noblejas of the Land Registration Commission, who had resigned from office.
• The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 11307 and was assigned to Branch X, which was presided over by Judge Herminio C. Mariano.

Lower Court Decision

• On March 28, 1969, Judge Herminio C. Mariano rendered an order granting the petition.
• The order directed Fiscal Aquino to include, in Criminal Case No. 18425, all persons indicated in his second indorsement dated June 20, 1968, including Commissioner Noblejas.
• A writ of mandamus was accordingly ordered to enforce the inclusion of the additional accused.

Developments in the Preliminary Investigation

• Prior to the filing of the information, Fiscal Aquino had conducted a preliminary investigation that revealed a strong prima facie case against Commissioner Noblejas.
• In his second indorsement to the Secretary of Justice, Fiscal Aquino had initially recommended the filing of an information against Noblejas along with other persons identified.
• However, following Commissioner Noblejas’s offer to resign and his subsequent explanation, Fiscal Aquino reassessed the matter and, in a memorandum dated September 2, 1968, concluded that Noblejas’s liability was primarily administrative, not criminal.
• As a result, the final criminal information was filed without including Commissioner Noblejas.

Legal and Procedural Context

• The petition raised significant questions regarding the adequacy of legal remedies available to the petitioner.
• The Revised Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 65) were central to the issue, emphasizing that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to be used only when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available.
• The requirement that administrative remedies must be exhausted before resorting to a petition for mandamus was a pivotal consideration in this case.

Issue:

Determination of the Proper Remedy

• Whether the appropriate remedy for compelling Fiscal Aquino to include Commissioner Noblejas as an accused was a petition for mandamus or a simple motion in the criminal case.
• Whether the petitioner's action in resorting to mandamus was justified given the availability of a less formal, more efficient administrative remedy.

Exhaustion of Available Administrative Remedies

• Whether Lucio Adriano, Jr. had a duty to exhaust administrative remedies—specifically by filing a motion within the criminal case—prior to seeking a judicial remedy through mandamus.
• Whether the failure to avail himself of a simple motion to amend the information undermined his right to file a petition for mandamus.

Procedural Validity and the Nature of the Mandamus Petition

• Whether the duty to include additional accused persons, as indicated in the second indorsement, qualifies as one that can be enforced by mandamus.
• Whether the exclusion of Commissioner Noblejas, based on subsequent administrative determinations, affected the legal foundation for issuing a writ of mandamus.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)