Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27611)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Jose Sierra, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. L-27611, L-27612 and L-27613, August 30, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is The People of the Philippines; the respondents/appellees are Jose Sierra, Jr., Bienvenido G. Garra, Lucio M. Cayaba, Enrique Javier, Carlos Carluen and Hartman Montero, charged with violations of Section 3602 in connection with Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The informations were filed in Criminal Case Nos. 84771, 84772 and 84782 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV (presided by Judge Felix R. Domingo).
On November 29, 1966 the three informations were signed and filed by State Prosecutor Delia P. Medina. Defendants moved to quash in December 1966 and January 1967, alleging that Medina lacked authority to initiate prosecution independently and that they were not heard before the informations were filed. On February 10, 1967 the trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila) dismissed two of the three criminal cases and quashed the indictment in the third insofar as certain defendants were concerned. The trial court reasoned that, under the Administrative Order and Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, Medina—as a special or State Prosecutor "appointed to assist" the City Fiscal—was required to coordinate with and take orders from the City Fiscal; that preliminary investigations should have been conducted and docketed in the Office of the City Fiscal; and that the accused had been denied a proper preliminary investigation and the right to be heard, thereby violating due process.
The People appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General (brief for appellant) asserted that the records showed that accused who appeared w...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the State Prosecutor/duly appointed special prosecutor have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to sign and file informations without the consent or physical presence of the City Fiscal under Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code and relevant jurisprudence?
- Did the alleged absence of a regular preliminary investigation or of an opportunity to be heard deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or otherwise violate due process so as...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)