Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16570)
Facts:
Arsenio Solidum, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., City Fiscal of Manila v. Jaime Hernandez, G.R. No. L-16570, February 28, 1963, the Supreme Court, Regala, J., writing for the Court.In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, Criminal Case No. 171.52 (styled "People of the Philippines vs. Secretary Jaime Hernandez"), respondent Jaime Hernandez was charged with violation of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code. On April 18, 1959 the City Fiscal, Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., filed an amended information alleging that Hernandez, having acquired shares in Avegon Construction and Electrical Co., Inc., granted that corporation tax exemptions and dollar allocations in his official capacities as Secretary of Finance and as presiding member of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.
On June 15, 1959 Hernandez moved to quash the amended information on three grounds: (1) mere stock ownership did not constitute a prohibited interest under Article 216; (2) he had no shareholding in Avegon during the material dates; and (3) Article 216 did not apply to a department head by virtue of Article VII, Section 11, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The trial judge, Arsenio Solidum, denied the motion on July 17, 1959, stating the constitutional and factual questions raised could not be properly decided without presentation of evidence; the judge set arraignment and denied reconsideration on August 1, 1959.
Respondent Hernandez then petitioned the Court of Appeals on August 12, 1959 for prohibition and/or mandamus (with a preliminary injunction), alleging the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and neglected a duty under Section 6, Rule 113, Rules of Court. The trial judge and the City Fiscal answered that the judge acted within jurisdiction, that appeal was an adequate remedy (citing Eulogio Mill v. Yatco, 101 Phil. 599), and that the constitutional question was not indubitable. On January 23, 1960 the Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition, annulled the challenged orders, and enjoined further proceedings in the criminal case on the ground that Article 216 had been rendered pro tanto inoperative as to department heads by Article VII, Section 11, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
The matter was brought to the Supreme Court, which gave pr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the issuance of the writ of prohibition by the Court of Appeals proper, i.e., did the circumstances show lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion justifying prohibition?
- Was Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code rendered inoperative, pro tanto, as to department heads by Article VII, Section 11, paragraph 2...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)