Facts:

The case involves Domingo Reyes as the petitioner against the Honorable Judge Serafin E. Camilon and the People of the Philippines as respondents. The events leading to this case began with a complaint filed by Pedro Domingo, Jr. against Reyes for a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. This complaint was lodged before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal in Pasig, Rizal, where a preliminary investigation was conducted by Assistant Fiscal Zenaida S. Baltazar. During this investigation, both parties were asked to submit evidence and were given until March 29, 1976, to file simultaneous memoranda. On March 11, 1976, Reyes' counsel requested the complainant to specify the provisions of R.A. 3019 that formed the basis of the complaint. On June 23, 1976, Fiscal Baltazar issued a resolution stating that a bill of particulars was unnecessary as sufficient prima facie evidence had been established against Reyes. Consequently, an information was filed against him, ...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) was filed by Pedro Domingo, Jr. against Domingo Reyes before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Pasig, Rizal.
• A preliminary investigation was conducted by Assistant Fiscal Zenaida S. Baltazar, during which both parties were given the opportunity to present evidence and file memoranda.

Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information

• On March 11, 1976, Reyes' counsel requested the complainant to specify the provisions of R.A. No. 3019 under which Reyes was being charged.
• On June 23, 1976, Fiscal Baltazar issued a Resolution stating that a bill of particulars was no longer necessary, as sufficient prima facie evidence had been established to charge Reyes under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
• An information was filed against Reyes, alleging that he, as a Building Superintendent II of the Bureau of Buildings and Real Property Management, demanded and received P46,200 as a bribe in connection with a construction project at the Central Luzon General Hospital.

Motion to Declare Information Invalid

• Reyes filed a Motion to Declare Information Invalid on three grounds:
  1. The acts charged did not constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
  2. He was not afforded due preliminary investigation.
  3. The information was defective in form and substance for failing to include all responsible public officers.

Trial Court's Ruling

• On May 17, 1977, the trial court denied Reyes' motion, ruling that:
  1. The information sufficiently stated the facts and essential elements of the offense.
  2. Reyes was afforded due process during the preliminary investigation.
  3. The fiscal has discretion in determining whom to charge, and the omission of other officials did not render the information defective.

Suspension from Office

• The trial court ordered Reyes' suspension from public office pending the final determination of the criminal case.

Petition for Certiorari

• Reyes filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion and his suspension.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Validity of the Information: The information sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the offense under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019. The designation of the offense or the specific provision violated is not controlling; what matters is the factual recital in the information.
2. Preliminary Investigation: Preliminary investigation is inquisitorial and does not place the accused in jeopardy. Reyes was afforded due process, and the fiscal's determination of probable cause was proper.
3. Fiscal's Discretion: The fiscal has the prerogative to determine whom to prosecute based on the evidence. The failure to include other officials does not render the information defective.
4. Suspension from Office: The suspension of a public officer pending trial is mandatory under R.A. No. 3019 when the information is valid.
5. Certiorari as a Remedy: Certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to quash. The appropriate recourse is to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal if convicted.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's rulings, emphasizing that the information was valid, the preliminary investigation was proper, and the fiscal's discretion in prosecuting the case was not abused. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.