G.R. No. L-19272 January 25, 1967
JAIME HERNANDEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. DELFIN ALBANO, HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR., City Fiscal of Manila and CARLOS C. GONZALES, Second Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Respondent Delfin Albano filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila against petitioner Jaime Hernandez, then Secretary of Finance and Presiding Officer of the Monetary Board, for alleged violations of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code, Commonwealth Act 626, and Republic Act 265. The complaint centered on petitioner’s alleged shareholdings in several corporations (University of the East, Bicol Electric Co., Rural Bank of Nueva Caceres, DMG Inc., and University of Nueva Caceres) and the claim that these corporations obtained dollar allocations from the Central Bank through the Monetary Board during petitioner’s incumbency. The charges were docketed as five separate investigation cases (I.S. Nos. 11379 to 11383). During the joint investigation, the complainant moved to exclude the alleged violation of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code, which was granted. Petitioner sought dismissal of the remaining charges, arguing that (a) violation of the Constitution punishable under C.A. 626 should be prosecuted at the domicile of the affected private enterprises, and (b) violation of Section 13 of R.A. 265 is not criminal in nature. Dismissal was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the respondent Fiscals from continuing the investigation. The lower court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecuting arm of the City of Manila should be restrained from proceeding with the investigation of the charges against petitioner.
2. Whether violation of Article VII, Section 11(2) of the Constitution, punishable under C.A. 626, should be prosecuted at the domicile of the private enterprise affected by the violation.
3. Whether violation of Section 13 of Republic Act 265 is criminal in nature.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under review, ruling that the respondent Fiscals should not be restrained from proceeding with the investigation. Ordinarily, criminal prosecution may not be blocked by court prohibition or injunction, as it is the sworn duty of a Fiscal to investigate crimes within his territorial jurisdiction to protect public interest. Exceptions exist only in extreme cases, such as to prevent oppressive use of the law, avoid multiplicity of actions, or protect constitutional rights. The circumstances of this case did not warrant such an exception.
2. The Court held that the City Fiscal of Manila has jurisdiction to investigate the alleged constitutional violation. Petitioner argued that the crime should be prosecuted at the situs of the shares, i.e., the domicile of the corporations (some outside Manila). The Court ruled that possession of prohibited interests is only one essential component of the offense. Other essential ingredients include the fact that petitioner was head of a department and chairman of the Monetary Board in Manila, and that he allegedly acted officially in his dual capacity in Manila where he held office. Since a criminal action must be instituted where the crime or an essential ingredient took place, Manila has jurisdiction under the facts of this case.
3. The Court held that a violation of Section 13 of R.A. 265 is criminal in nature. Petitioner argued that Section 15 of the same Act provides only a civil sanction. The Court found this argument nonsequitur, as Section 34 of R.A. 265 clearly provides a penal sanction for any person who willfully violates the Act. Section 15 was not intended to exclude criminal liability under Section 34. Therefore, the respondent Fiscals were justified in investigating a violation of Section 13 under the broad penal provision of Section 34. Costs were imposed against petitioner.