G.R. No. L-12196 - Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete

In Criminal Case No. 278 of the Justice of the Peace Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan, several persons were charged with "Offending the Religious Feeling" under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
The complaint, filed by the Chief of Police, alleged that while devotees of the Iglesia Ni Cristo were holding a ceremony in a house, the accused halted before the premises, made unnecessary noise, shouted derogatory words against the Iglesia Ni Cristo and its members, and even pelted the house with stones.

The Justice of the Peace conducted a preliminary investigation, reducing the proceedings to writing and finding that there was probable cause, hence elevating the case to the Court of First Instance as Criminal Case No. 5046.
Upon receiving the record of the case, the petitioner, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan, summoned the offended parties and a private prosecutor (representing prosecution witnesses) to testify, intending to further investigate and verify the sufficiency of evidence before initiating prosecution.

The offended parties and the private prosecutor, while appearing before the petitioner, declined to give any testimony, stating that they were reserving their testimonies for trial and that the fiscal had no right to compel them.
Owing to their refusal and the resulting lack of cooperation, the petitioner filed a motion for dismissal of the case, arguing that he was not convinced of the evidentiary basis required for prosecution.
The motion for dismissal was set for hearing, during which the respondent Judge denied the motion and, concurrently, ordered the petitioner to file the corresponding information within five days.

After the denial of the motion for dismissal, the petitioner sought a reconsideration but was unsuccessful.
The petitioner then attempted to appeal the order; however, the respondent Judge declined the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
The case raised questions regarding the respective roles and obligations of the prosecuting official, the cooperation of prosecution witnesses, and the extent of judicial discretion in handling remedial motions such as the motion for dismissal.

Whether the refusal of the offended parties and the private prosecutor to testify during the fiscal’s investigation justifies the filing of a motion for dismissal on the part of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal.
Whether a prosecuting officer possesses the right and duty to independently investigate the evidence even when a case has been elevated from the Justice of the Peace to the Court of First Instance.
Whether the court, exercising its broad discretion, may deny the motion for dismissal based on the sufficiency of the evidence as recorded in the preliminary investigation.
Whether the additional directive compelling the petitioner to file the corresponding information within a specified period is proper, given the prosecutorial doubts regarding the strength of the evidence.
Whether an interlocutory order such as the one denying the motion for dismissal is appealable by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal.