GR 96229; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96229 March 25, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. GLORIOSA S. NAVARRO, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Naga City, respondent.
FACTS
A complaint for qualified theft was filed directly with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City by a PC Investigator against minor Carlos Barbosa Jr. The case was raffled to Branch 19, whose presiding judge remanded it to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for a preliminary investigation, assigning it to Prosecutor Salvador Cajot. Before Cajot could act, the complainant filed a motion to withdraw, which Cajot granted via an order that also directed the accused’s release. Upon learning of this, Judge Gloriosa S. Navarro of Branch 20, to which the case was subsequently transferred, set aside Cajot’s order. She ruled the dismissal was improper as no preliminary investigation had been conducted. In her June 18, 1990 Order, she specifically directed Assistant Prosecutor Novelita Villegas-Llaguno, who was assigned to her sala, to conduct the required preliminary investigation within fifteen days.
ISSUE
May a regional trial court judge, in remanding a case for preliminary investigation, designate a specific assistant prosecutor to conduct it?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the assailed orders. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of prosecutorial independence and the hierarchical structure of the prosecution service. The Court emphasized that the authority to conduct preliminary investigations is vested by law in prosecutors, under the direction and control of the Provincial Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor. This power includes the discretion to determine how to allocate and assign cases among the prosecutors within their office. When a court remands a case for preliminary investigation, it effectively returns jurisdiction over that investigative stage to the prosecution service. For a judge to then name a particular prosecutor to handle the case constitutes an unwarranted judicial intrusion into the executive function of prosecution. It disrupts the internal administration and assignment prerogatives of the Office of the Prosecutor. The Court cited precedents, including Abugotal v. Tiro, which established that a trial court cannot interfere with or dictate the choice of investigating prosecutor, as this violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The objective of a preliminary investigation is to determine probable cause, a function exclusively within the prosecutorial domain. Therefore, while a court may order a preliminary investigation, it cannot designate the individual who will execute it.