G.R. No. L-14916. December 29, 1962.
BENJAMIN R. ABUBAKAR and HABIB SABRE, petitioners, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARCA and GERONIMO R. MARAVE, and ACTING PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF JOLO, SULU, respondents.

FACTS

An amended criminal complaint for double murder and multiple frustrated murder was filed with the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Indanan, Sulu, against petitioners and others. The JP court conducted a preliminary investigation, dismissed the case against petitioners Abubakar and Sabre for lack of prima facie evidence, and forwarded the records to the Court of First Instance (CFI) regarding the other accused. Subsequently, the Secretary of Justice appointed an Acting Provincial Fiscal for Sulu to investigate the case. The fiscal conducted his own preliminary investigation, wherein petitioners’ counsel requested and was granted the opportunity to be present and submit evidence. After this investigation, the fiscal filed separate informations in the CFI, including one against petitioners as principals by induction.
Petitioners moved to quash the information, arguing that under Republic Act No. 732 , the fiscal lacked authority to file an information in the CFI after the JP court had already dismissed the case following its preliminary investigation. They relied on a Court of Appeals decision in People vs. Magbanua. The CFI denied their motion and subsequent reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether a provincial fiscal is authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation and file an information in the Court of First Instance after the Justice of the Peace Court has dismissed the case following its own preliminary investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the fiscal’s authority. The legal logic clarifies the application of Republic Act No. 732 , which governs preliminary investigations conducted by fiscals for cases originally instituted by them in the CFI. The Court distinguished the present case from Villanueva vs. Gonzales, which held that the Act does not apply when a case is begun in a JP court and forwarded to the CFI after the JP court either finds a prima facie case or the accused waives investigation. In such instances, the fiscal may rely on the JP court’s records and is not obligated to conduct a new investigation.
However, the ruling in Villanueva does not preclude a fiscal from conducting an independent investigation if the JP court dismisses the charge. A dismissal by the JP court returns the situation to its initial state, as if no charge had been made, leaving no legal barrier to a new investigation by the fiscal. The Court of Appeals in Magbanua erroneously interpreted Villanueva to mean a fiscal could never investigate after a JP court filing. The correct doctrine, as reiterated in People vs. Pervez, is that after a JP court dismissal, the fiscal may conduct his own investigation under Republic Act No. 732 , provided the accused is given the opportunity to be present and submit evidence if requested. Here, petitioners were afforded that opportunity, and the fiscal’s investigation was valid. Consequently, the CFI acquired jurisdiction, and its orders denying the motion to quash were correct.