Facts:

This case revolves around Manuel Grinen, who was employed as a cashier for the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) since February 1957. On December 17, 1958, he was terminated from his position due to a violation of office regulations. Subsequently, on February 18, 1959, Aurelio Peña, the Auditor of the PCSO, sent a letter to Filemon R. Consolacion, the City Fiscal of Iloilo, detailing the examination of accounts and cash by Mr. Jose Villagracia, a former salesman of the PCSO who was implicated in a financial discrepancy amounting to ₱5,623.65. The letter highlighted that Villagracia had issued a rubber check that was received by Grinen, who had accepted it knowing the account was closed, thus raising questions about Grinen’s complicity in the situation.

City Fiscal Consolacion decided to initiate a preliminary investigation and issued subpoenas to various individuals including Grinen, to appear before him on May 29, 1959. Although notified of the investigation, Grinen

...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Manuel Grinen, petitioner-appellant, had been employed as a cashier of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office since February 1957.
• The respondents-appellees include Filemon R. Consolacion, City Fiscal of Iloilo, and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

Removal and Subsequent Allegations

• On December 17, 1958, Grinen was removed from his post for violating office regulations.
• On February 18, 1959, Aurelio Pena, the Auditor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, submitted a letter to the City Fiscal of Iloilo.
• The letter contained a report of examination regarding the accountability of Mr. Jose Villagracia, a former salesman, showing a shortage amounting to P5,623.65.
• It included documentary evidence such as copies of rubber checks (e.g., CBC Check No. 243018 for P1,000.00 returned by the bank with the notation “No account”) and several consignment invoices supporting transactions for various draw dates.
• The letter alleged that Grinen had accepted the rubber check with full knowledge of the maker’s insufficient bank deposits, thereby implying his complicity in the irregularities.

Initiation of the Preliminary Inquiry

• Acting on the Auditor’s letter, the City Fiscal, Filemon R. Consolacion, issued a subpoena on May 29, 1959, summoning witnesses including Romulo Plagata, Manuel Lacson, Jose Villagracia, and Grinen himself.
• Grinen, having been informed of his possible connection to malversation charges against other employees, sought information on subsequent investigations and requested his right to cross-examine witnesses.

Filing of the Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction

• Instead of appearing on the scheduled investigation date (set for July 20, 1959), Grinen filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction (Case No. 5249) to restrain the City Fiscal from further inquiry or filing any information against him.
• His petition asserted two main allegations:
• Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the City Fiscal because no valid (sworn) complaint had been filed.
• The absence of any statutory basis under which he could be criminally prosecuted.
• He further sought moral damages of P10,000.00 and P500.00 for attorney’s fees.

Lower Court Proceedings and Decision

• On July 22, 1959, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon Grinen’s filing of a P1,000.00 bond.
• Respondents answered the petition with admissions and denials, defending the City Fiscal’s authority to conduct the preliminary inquiry and asserting that prosecuting Grinen was permissible under the Revised Penal Code.
• On August 18, 1959, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing Grinen’s petition, dissolved the writ of injunction, dismissed the counterclaim by the City Fiscal for lack of evidence, and denied the motion for judgment by default on the same grounds.

Grounds for Appeal

• Grinen contended that the trial court erred by:
• Not stating clearly and distinctly the factual and legal bases for its decision.
• Erroneously finding that a valid complaint had been filed and that the City Fiscal had proper jurisdiction to investigate.
• Overlooking the argument that no law existed under which he could be prosecuted.
• The appellate review focused on these contentions in relation to the sufficiency and scope of trial court findings and the statutory authority of the City Fiscal.

Issue:

Jurisdiction to Conduct Preliminary Inquiry

• Whether the City Fiscal had the authority to initiate a preliminary inquiry based on the Auditor’s letter, despite the absence of a sworn complaint as prescribed by some rules.
• Whether the issuance of a subpoena and the subsequent investigation were within the powers conferred upon the City Fiscal by local and national statutes.

Validity of the Complaint Basis for Investigation

• Whether the letter-complaint from the Auditor, although unsworn, sufficed to establish a prima facie case of malversation against Grinen.
• Whether the absence of the jurat in the complaint negated the City Fiscal’s power to investigate.

Appropriateness of Granting Prohibition or Injunction

• Whether a petition for prohibition with a preliminary injunction was proper in a criminal proceeding where prosecution is considered a matter of public interest.
• Whether criminal prosecutions, particularly those involving public funds, are subject to such injunctions under the established doctrine.

Adequacy and Clarity of the Trial Court’s Findings

• Whether the trial court’s brief and focused findings were sufficient and pertinent to support its decision.
• Whether the trial court’s ruling conformed with the requirements of Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)