GR 26420; (May, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26420. May 31, 1971. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, JUDGE, Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch 1, and ISAGANI ROBLETE, respondents.
FACTS
The Assistant City Fiscal of Roxas City filed an Information against Isagani Roblete for violating Section 92 of the Revised Election Code. The fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation where Roblete, through counsel, appeared and cross-examined prosecution witnesses. Convinced of a prima facie case, the fiscal filed the Information in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Capiz. Roblete posted bail. Upon arraignment, he moved to quash the Information, arguing the fiscal lacked authority to conduct the preliminary investigation for an election offense.
The respondent judge granted the motion and dismissed the case. He ruled that under Section 187 of the Revised Election Code, the CFI has exclusive original jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations for election law violations. Therefore, the fiscal’s investigation and filing of the Information were void for lack of jurisdiction. The court held its only acquired jurisdiction was to declare the proceeding illegal and dismiss the case. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case on the sole ground that the preliminary investigation was conducted by the city fiscal instead of the CFI.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and reversed the dismissal orders. The Court clarified that the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFI under Section 187 pertains to the trial and decision of election offenses, not to the initiation of the criminal proceeding. The law does not prohibit a fiscal from filing an information for an election offense. A fiscal may file an information based on a complaint, even without personally conducting a preliminary investigation, especially when such investigation is required by law to be undertaken by a judge or another officer.
The respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case outright. The proper course of action, upon finding the fiscal’s preliminary investigation was not the one prescribed by the Election Code, was for the CFI to conduct its own preliminary investigation or require the submission of supporting affidavits, not to quash the information. The information remained valid as a formal accusation. The dismissal frustrated the public interest in the speedy resolution of election-related charges. The Court ordered the respondent court to proceed with the case in accordance with this ruling.