G.R. No. L-12196; May 28, 1958
THE ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN, petitioner, vs. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE, Judge, Court of First Instance, Bataan, respondent.

FACTS

Several persons were charged with “Offending the Religious Feeling” under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 278 of the Justice of the Peace Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan. The complaint alleged that while devotees of the Iglesia Ni Cristo were holding a ceremony, the accused made noise, shouted derogatory words, and stoned the house. After conducting a preliminary investigation and making written findings of fact, the Justice of the Peace elevated the case to the Court of First Instance of Bataan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5046, opining that “the crime has in fact been committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof.” Upon receiving the record, the petitioner Assistant Provincial Fiscal summoned the offended parties and prosecution witnesses, who were represented by a private prosecutor, to appear before him to gather evidence and convince himself of its sufficiency before prosecution. The offended parties and private prosecutor appeared but declined to testify, contending the Fiscal had no right to require them and reserving their testimonies for trial. Considering this attitude, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case. The private prosecutor opposed the motion. After a hearing, respondent Judge issued an order denying the motion to dismiss and ordering the petitioner to file the corresponding information within five days. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and his attempt to appeal the order was also denied by respondent Judge on the ground that it was an interlocutory order and not appealable. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order denying the motion to dismiss and ordering the petitioner to file the corresponding information.

RULING

The petition is granted in part and denied in part. The Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, as such action was within his sound discretion. Citing U.S. vs. Barredo, the Court stated that a judge may deny a motion to dismiss if, from the record of the proceedings in the justice of the peace court or other information, it appears the case should not be dismissed. However, the Court set aside that portion of the order directing the petitioner to file the corresponding information within five days. The Court found it unnecessary and potentially embarrassing to compel a prosecuting attorney to prosecute a case when he is not convinced of the merits or lacks evidence. The Court clarified that a fiscal has the right, but not the obligation, to conduct his own investigation after a case is elevated from the justice of the peace court, and offended parties have a corresponding duty to submit to such investigation. The petitioner was only partly justified in moving for dismissal; full justification would require an investigation convincing him that evidence is insufficient. The proper course for the petitioner was to advise the court of the offended parties’ refusal and request an order for them to submit to investigation. The Court suggested that the respondent Judge either order the offended parties to submit to an investigation by the petitioner or, considering the petitioner’s attitude, have the trial court or offended parties request the Department of Justice to designate an Acting Provincial Fiscal under Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court also noted that the order was interlocutory and not appealable. No costs were awarded.