G.R. No. L-23906 - People vs. Monton

A criminal complaint for libel was initially filed on May 15, 1957, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Miagao, Iloilo.
The libel charge arose from a letter allegedly sent by the defendants to the then President of the Philippines, in which they denounced certain illegal and oppressive acts committed by Jose J. Monteclaro, the City Fiscal of Iloilo.
The objectives of the communication were to expose alleged misconduct, which purportedly placed Monteclaro in public hatred, contempt, dishonor, discredit, and ridicule.

The initial complaint was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace Court on the ground that there was no probable cause to believe the crime of libel had been committed.
Despite the dismissal, on May 8, 1968, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo filed a new information before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo, charging the same set of defendants with libel.
The accused’s counsel filed a motion to quash the new information on two grounds:

The alleged communication was a private correspondence made in the discharge of their legal, moral, or social duties, thus not constituting libel.
The information was filed without due process; specifically, it lacked a proper preliminary investigation.

The trial court granted the motion to quash the new information on the first ground, finding the communication privileged.
Concerning the second ground regarding the absence of a preliminary investigation, the trial court took an evidentiary hearing:

The prosecution produced the affidavit of the offended party and a certificate from Assistant Provincial Fiscal Eugenio M. Gison, asserting that a preliminary investigation was conducted.
The defense countered with evidence of the earlier dismissal by the Justice of the Peace Court and maintained that none of the accused were summoned or notified to participate in any preliminary investigation.

The affidavit of the offended party did not prove that he was personally examined by Fiscal Gison as required for a proper investigation.
The certificate from Assistant Fiscal Gison lacked the necessary details and affirmation that witnesses had been examined under oath or that a complete preliminary investigation had taken place.

The court ruled that no proper preliminary investigation was held since the evidentiary requirements as laid down under the Rules of Court were not satisfied.

Whether the privileged nature of the communication could legally justify dismissing the information.
Whether a preliminary investigation was necessary before the prosecution of a new information, particularly after a dismissal based on a lack of probable cause.

The Supreme Court set aside the earlier dismissal on the first issue, holding that the prosecution was entitled to proceed to trial and present evidence of malice.
On the preliminary investigation issue, the Court reinforced the necessity of a proper investigation to protect the accused’s constitutional rights, particularly the right to due process.

Whether the privileged nature of the alleged libelous communication provided a legal basis for quashing the new information filed by the Provincial Fiscal.
Whether a preliminary investigation was required for the new information, considering the prior dismissal of the original complaint and the rights of the accused to due process.
Whether a certification by an assistant fiscal, lacking detailed evidentiary support, can suffice in dispensing with the requirement of a preliminary investigation.