GR 31839; (June, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31839 June 30, 1980
EDMUNDO S. ALBERTO, Provincial Fiscal and BONIFACIO C. INTIA, 1st Asst. Provincial Fiscal, both of Camarines Sur, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Judge of the CFI of Camarines Sur and ELIGIO ORBITA, respondents.
FACTS
In Criminal Case No. 9414, Eligio Orbita, a provincial guard, was charged with Infidelity in the Custody of a Prisoner under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code for the escape of detention prisoner Pablo Denaque. During trial, the defense presented a note purportedly from Governor Armando Cledera to Assistant Provincial Warden Jose Esmeralda, requesting five men for work at a provincial guest house. The defense argued this note facilitated the escape and moved to amend the information to include Cledera and Esmeralda as co-accused. The respondent judge initially ordered the fiscal to reinvestigate. After reinvestigation, the fiscal concluded no prima facie case existed against Cledera and Esmeralda. Nevertheless, the judge subsequently issued an order directing the fiscal to amend the information to include them.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the fiscal to amend the information to include Governor Cledera and Jose Esmeralda as defendants against the fiscal’s discretion and findings.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the orders of the respondent judge. The Court emphasized that the fiscal, by the nature of his office, possesses the prerogative to determine whether the evidence suffices to establish a prima facie case. While this discretion is subject to judicial review, a judge cannot compel a fiscal to prosecute individuals when the fiscal, after investigation, is convinced no evidence supports the charge. Forcing prosecution would be embarrassing and untenable, as the fiscal cannot be expected to prosecute a case he believes lacks merit. The proper remedy if dissatisfied with the fiscal’s decision is to appeal to the Ministry of Justice or request a special prosecutor.
Moreover, the evidence on record did not justify inclusion. For liability under Article 224, the officer’s negligence must be the direct cause of the escape. The note from Governor Cledera did not specify which prisoners were to be used for labor; it was Orbita who selected the work party. No connivance or deliberate negligence by Cledera or Esmeralda could be deduced from the note. The respondent judge’s own earlier findings indicated no clear negligence on their part. Therefore, the judge’s order constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The fiscal’s refusal to include them was neither arbitrary nor baseless. The trial court was directed to proceed with Orbita’s case alone.