GR L 31028; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31028 June 29, 1972
GREGORIO TALUSAN, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO D. OFIANA, as Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio Talusan filed a criminal complaint for frustrated murder against private respondents before the Municipal Court of San Rafael, Bulacan. After an ex-parte preliminary investigation, the court issued warrants of arrest. The case was later remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and docketed as Criminal Case No. 50-B after the accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. Subsequently, private respondents filed their own charges for attempted murder (I.S. Nos. 3607 and 3607-A) with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, arising from the same incident.
Private respondents then petitioned the Provincial Fiscal for a reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. 50-B and its joint hearing with the preliminary investigation of their countercharges. The Fiscal granted the petition. Talusan opposed this and filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CFI, challenging the Fiscal’s authority to conduct the reinvestigation and joint hearing. The CFI dismissed his petition for lack of merit, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Provincial Fiscal has the authority to: (1) reinvestigate a criminal case already filed in the CFI; (2) proceed with the preliminary investigation of countercharges filed by the accused; and (3) conduct a joint hearing of the reinvestigation and the preliminary investigation of the countercharges.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s dismissal, ruling in favor of the Fiscal’s authority on all points. On the first issue, the Court held that a Provincial Fiscal has both the power and the duty to conduct his own investigation or reinvestigation of a case elevated from the municipal court to the CFI before filing an information. This is to determine the sufficiency of evidence for prosecution, as established in Assistant Fiscal, Bataan vs. Dollete and People vs. Ovilla.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the accused are not estopped from filing countercharges. The doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the State in criminal prosecutions for public offenses like attempted murder, as the public interest demands punishment of offenders, and such actions cannot be barred by estoppel.
On the third issue, the Court found no objection to a joint hearing. Since the Fiscal is authorized to reinvestigate the main case and conduct the preliminary investigation of the related countercharges (both cognizable by the CFI and arising from the same incident), a joint hearing is permissible under Republic Act No. 5180 . It promotes efficiency by saving time for the Fiscal, the parties, and their witnesses.