G.R. No. L-31839 - Alberto vs. De la Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31839)

Key Dates

Incident: September 12, 1968 (escape of detention prisoner Pablo Denaque).
Court reinvestigation ordered: December 11, 1969; reinvestigation set for December 19, 1969.
Fiscal manifestation of no prima facie case: January 2, 1970.
Motion for reconsideration by accused Orbita: January 19, 1970.
Court order directing amendment of information: January 26, 1970.
Denial of fiscal’s motion for reconsideration: February 18, 1970.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Context

Applicable constitution at the time of decision: the 1973 Philippine Constitution (in force at the time of the events and orders reviewed). Relevant statutory provisions: Articles 156, 223, and 224 of the Revised Penal Code; Section 1731 of the Revised Administrative Code (identifying the governor as jailer of the province). Presidential Decree No. 77 referenced in concurrence concerning preliminary investigation procedure.

Procedural Posture

Petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction was filed by the Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal to annul and set aside: (1) the respondent judge’s January 26, 1970 order directing the Prosecutor to amend the information in Criminal Case No. 9414 to include Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants; and (2) the February 18, 1970 order denying reconsideration of that direction. The trial concerns Eligio Orbita, charged with Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner (Article 224, RPC) for the escape of detention prisoner Pablo Denaque.

Facts Relevant to the Motion to Amend

During cross-examination a prosecution witness, Jose Esmeralda (assistant provincial warden), was confronted with Exhibit 2, a note purportedly written by Governor Cledera requesting five men to work at the governor’s leased guest house. The witness could not recall who gave him the note, could not confirm the signature’s genuineness, and was not present when the note was signed. The defense contended that the note facilitated Denaque’s escape and moved to include Cledera and Esmeralda as defendants. The trial court originally ordered the fiscal to conduct further reinvestigation, which the fiscal undertook and scheduled for December 19, 1969; summonses were issued to Cledera, Esmeralda, Padua, and Orbita. On the reinvestigation date, Orbita did not appear and Exhibit 2 was not produced. The fiscal thereafter manifested that no prima facie case existed against Cledera and Esmeralda. Despite that, the trial court on January 26, 1970 ordered the information amended to include the author of Exhibit 2 and those who carried out the orders therein; the fiscal’s motion for reconsideration of that order was denied on February 18, 1970.

Issue Presented

Whether the trial court properly directed the Provincial Fiscal to amend the information to include Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants despite the fiscal’s conclusion, after reinvestigation, that no prima facie case existed against them.

Legal Principles on Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Review

The court reiterated the established rule that a fiscal, by reason of his office, is not compelled to file an information when he is not convinced that the evidence supports the charge; this discretionary determination, while subject to judicial review, should not be lightly overridden. Forcing prosecution when the fiscal reasonably believes there is insufficient evidence to secure conviction would be embarrassing and inappropriate; available remedies include appealing the fiscal’s determination to the Ministry of Justice or requesting a special prosecutor rather than judicial compulsion to prosecute.

Analysis under Article 156 (Delivering Prisoners From Jails)

Article 156 punishes removing a person from a jail or helping a prisoner to escape, typically by outsiders who remove or assist escape with means. The Court noted that where the offender is a public officer with custody of the prisoner, the applicable provisions are Articles 223 and 224, not Article 156. Because Governor Cledera, by virtue of Section 1731 of the Revised Administrative Code, is the provincial jailer and Esmeralda is assistant provincial warden, Article 156 is not the proper provision to charge them.

Analysis under Article 223 (Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion)

Article 223 requires proof that a public officer consented to or connived in a prisoner's escape. Connivance is an essential element; absent evidence of consent or active connivance, no liability under Article 223 attaches. The Court found no evidence from Exhibit 2 to infer consent or connivance: the note did not name the prisoners, the accused Orbita himself selected the work party, and there was no testimony that Cledera or Esmeralda had agreed to or facilitated the escape. Accordingly, the record failed to establish the essential element of connivance needed for prosecution under Article 223.

Analysis under Article 224 (Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner — Negligence)

Article 224 punishes public officers whose negligence in custody results in escape; the negligence required is a definite laxity amounting to deliberate nonperformance of duty. The trial court had observed that any negligence, if at all, must be attributable to the officer charged with direct custody and guarding of the prisoner. T

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31839)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Edmundo S. Alberto (Provincial Fiscal) and Bonifacio C. Intia (1st Assistant Provincial Fiscal) of Camarines Sur, with a prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petition seeks annulment and setting aside of two court orders issued by respondent Judge Rafael De La Cruz: the order dated January 26, 1970 directing the Fiscal to amend the information in Criminal Case No. 9414 to include Governor Armando Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants, and the order dated February 18, 1970 denying reconsideration of that order.
The underlying criminal action is Criminal Case No. 9414, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, captioned "The People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Eligio Orbita, accused."

Underlying Crime and Accusation Against Orbita

Accused: Eligio Orbita, a provincial guard.
Charge: Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner, under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code.
Alleged facts in the information: On or about September 12, 1968, in Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur, Orbita, being a member of the Provincial Guard and specially charged with custody of detention prisoner Pablo Denaque, left the detainee unguarded through great carelessness and unjustifiable negligence, thereby giving him the opportunity to escape; Denaque did in fact escape. [1]

Evidentiary Development at Trial

During cross-examination of prosecution witness Jose Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden, the defense produced Exhibit 2: a note purportedly written by Governor Armando Cledera requesting five men to work on a fence at his house in Taculod (a residence then leased by the province and used as an official guest house).
Testimony of Jose Esmeralda regarding Exhibit 2:
- He could not remember who handed him the note.
- He was not sure of the genuineness of the signature on the note.
- He was not present when the note was made and signed by Gov. Cledera. [2]

Motion to Amend Information and Trial Court's Initial Action

Defense counsel filed a motion to amend the information to include Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants, asserting the escape was made possible by the Governor’s note and that both Cledera and Esmeralda were equally guilty for the offense charged against Orbita. [3]
The prosecution officers opposed the motion. [4]
Respondent Judge found that the court could not grant the motion to include Cledera and Esmeralda "at this stage unless an investigation is made," and ordered the Provincial Fiscal to cause further investigation within 15 days, instructing reinvestigation to consider Article 156 in relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Revised Penal Code to determine any criminatory participation by the Governor and his assistant. [5]

Fiscal’s Reinvestigation and Findings

The Fiscal set the reinvestigation for December 19, 1969 and issued summonses to Gov. Cledera, Jose Esmeralda, Lorenzo Padua (provincial warden), and accused Orbita. [6]
On the scheduled date, only Cledera, Esmeralda, and Padua appeared; accused Orbita did not appear and Exhibit 2 (the note) was not produced.
No additional evidence was elicited. On January 2, 1970, the Fiscal manifested that after reinvestigation and analysis, "no prima facie case against Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda exist, hence, they cannot be charged." [7]

Subsequent Motions and Court Orders

On January 19, 1970, accused Orbita filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking that instead of ordering reinvestigation, the court order the Provincial Fiscal to amend the information to include Cledera and Esmeralda on the basis of the evidence already on record. [8]
On January 26, 1970, the respondent Court issued the order directing amendment of the information to include "the author or writer of Exhibit 2 and the person or persons who carried out the said orders considering the provisions of Article 156 in relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Penal Code." [9]
The Fiscal moved for reconsideration of that order. [10]
The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 1970. [11]

Petitioners’ Contention Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners challenge the trial court’s orders of January 26 and February 18, 1970, arguing the respondent Judge erred in ordering the Fiscal to amend the information to include Cledera and Esmeralda.
Petitioners assert the Fiscal, by nature of his office, may decline to file an information where he is unconvinced the evidence will support the allegations, and that