G.R. No. L-15139; April 28, 1961
FELIX DE CASTRO, JR., QUIRINO AMBROSIO and ANTONIO CARAMBAS, petitioners-appellees, vs. EMITERIO M. CASTAÑEDA and RAMON G. LICERALDE, in their capacity as Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal, respectively, of Pangasinan, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellees, charged with illegal fishing with poison, filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. They sought to compel the Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal to include Catalino Malanum and Laureano Pasag as co-defendants in the criminal information. The appellees’ motion was based on the sworn affidavits of Malanum and Pasag, which were attached to the prosecution’s record. These affidavits indicated that Malanum had personally poured a poisonous liquid into the river under the order of appellee De Castro, and that Pasag had knowingly helped gather the poisoned fish for a share. The appellees argued that these individuals were equally responsible and that the prosecuting officers had a duty to include them.
The appellants opposed the petition, asserting that after conducting a preliminary investigation, they determined there was insufficient evidence to hold Malanum and Pasag criminally liable. They contended that Malanum merely followed orders and Pasag only gathered fish as evidence. The appellants argued that the determination of who to prosecute is an executive function within the exclusive discretion of the prosecuting officer, and mandamus does not lie to control such discretion.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the Provincial Fiscal to include specific individuals as accused in a criminal information based on their sworn statements attached to the prosecution’s record.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment granting the writ of mandamus. The legal logic is that while the prosecuting officer generally possesses broad discretion in determining whom to prosecute, this discretion is not absolute and cannot encroach upon the judicial prerogative to ensure all persons appearing responsible are brought before the court. The Court, relying on the doctrine in Guiao vs. Figueroa, held that when sworn affidavits forming part of the record prima facie demonstrate an individual’s direct participation in the commission of the offense, as in this case where Malanum admitted pouring the poison and Pasag admitted gathering the poisoned fish, such persons should be included in the information. If the prosecution’s intent is to utilize them as state witnesses, the proper procedure is to seek their discharge from the information under the Rules of Court, not to exclude them from the charge initially. The Court found that the affidavits provided a factual basis indicating criminal liability, and the fiscal’s refusal to include them, under these specific circumstances, constituted a neglect of a duty enjoined by law, for which mandamus is the appropriate remedy to order the inclusion of the individuals as co-accused.