G.R. No. L-1533; September 9, 1947
DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA, petitioner, vs. NICASIO YATCO, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA, Justice of the Peace of San Pedro, Laguna, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Dominador Temporosa, filed a complaint for illegal detention against respondent Santos B. Pampolina, a Justice of the Peace. After conducting an investigation, the other respondent, Judge Nicasio Yatco of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, refused to issue a warrant of arrest and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal from this order of dismissal. Judge Yatco denied the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in People vs. Ocampo (63 Phil., 121), which held that a resolution dismissing a complaint and denying the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not appealable.

ISSUE

1. Whether an appeal lies from a judge’s order dismissing a complaint and refusing to issue a warrant of arrest after a preliminary investigation conducted prior to arrest.
2. Whether an appeal lies from an order of a Court of First Instance judge dismissing administrative charges filed against a justice of the peace, and if so, whether mandamus can compel the judge to allow such an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
1. On the appeal from the dismissal of the criminal complaint: The Court ruled that no appeal lies from a resolution of a judge dismissing a complaint and denying the issuance of a warrant of arrest after a preliminary investigation conducted prior to arrest (as provided under section 1 of Rule 108, formerly section 13 of General Orders No. 58). The Court affirmed its doctrine in People vs. Ocampo, explaining that the appeal provided under the old procedure (section 14 of General Orders No. 58) was from a resolution ordering the release of an accused after arrest. In contrast, a dismissal after a pre-arrest investigation does not bar the filing of another complaint for the same offense, and there is no defendant in custody to be released by such dismissal.
2. On the appeal from the dismissal of administrative charges: The Court also ruled that no appeal lies from the order of a Court of First Instance judge dismissing administrative charges against a justice of the peace. The governing law, section 229 of the Administrative Code, does not provide for an appeal from the judge’s action on such an investigation. Similarly, the Rules of Court (section 1, Rule 129) concerning investigations of complaints against judges do not provide for an appeal from the Supreme Court’s recommendation to the Chief Executive. Consequently, a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to allow such an appeal does not lie.
The petition was dismissed.