GR 28779; (February, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28779 February 28, 1973
JUAN D. NASSR, petitioner-appellee, vs. HON. PATRICIO C. PEREZ and THE HON. CITY FISCAL of BAGUIO, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan D. Nassr was charged in the Baguio City Court with three criminal cases: one for violating a city ordinance and two for violating the National Internal Revenue Code. The original informations were signed by a special counsel designated by the Secretary of Justice. Nassr filed a motion to quash, arguing the special counsel lacked authority to sign. The City Court sustained this ground, directing that the informations be signed by a regular fiscal. Subsequently, amended informations were filed by the same special counsel, and for the two tax cases, the City Court later ordered the filing of criminal complaints signed by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which was done.
Nassr filed a second motion to quash, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Baguio, seeking to restrain the trial. Initially, the CFI dismissed his petition, upholding the special counsel’s authority. However, upon Nassr’s motion for reconsideration, the CFI reversed itself, granted the petition, and ordered the dismissal without prejudice of the criminal cases. The prosecution appealed this order to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the special counsel designated by the Secretary of Justice had the authority to sign the original criminal informations against the petitioner.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed CFI order and reinstated the criminal cases for trial. The Court held that the special counsel, duly designated by the Secretary of Justice, possessed the authority to sign the informations. The power to prosecute criminal actions is vested in the fiscal or prosecutor, and this authority can be delegated to a special counsel appointed by the Secretary of Justice. The Court cited its precedent in U.S. vs. Rodriguez, which established that a special counsel can validly sign an information for violation of internal revenue laws.
The CFI’s initial dismissal of Nassr’s petition was correct, as there was no legal defect in the signing authority. Its subsequent reversal, based on a perceived “confusion” or technicality, was erroneous. The informations filed by the properly authorized special counsel were valid from inception. The subsequent amendments and the filing of complaints by the Regional Director did not invalidate the original, properly instituted proceedings. The Court emphasized that the objective is to afford the accused a speedy trial, not to dismiss cases on unmeritorious technical grounds concerning prosecutorial signatures. The cases were remanded to the city court for trial on the merits.