G.R. No. L-34285 March 8, 1989
B. JOSE CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, Judge, Circuit Criminal Court, 7th Judicial District, RENATO MONTES and JOSE DE SILVA, respondents.

FACTS

In 1971, respondents Renato Montes and Jose de Silva filed a complaint for estafa directly with the Circuit Criminal Court presided by respondent Judge Onofre A. Villaluz. Judge Villaluz conducted a preliminary investigation and subsequently issued an Order finding probable cause. The Order directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest and, invoking Section 6, Rule 135 in relation to Section 13, Rule 112 of the 1964 Rules of Court, commanded the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, petitioner B. Jose Castillo, to file the corresponding information within twenty-four hours. Petitioner Fiscal failed to comply with this directive. Consequently, Judge Villaluz issued an order requiring the Fiscal to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. The Fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Petitioner Fiscal argued that the Circuit Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations, as its charter, R.A. No. 5179, only granted it powers to try and decide cases. He contended that preliminary investigation is an executive function properly belonging to the public prosecutor. Even assuming the court had such power, the Fiscal asserted that the judge could not compel him, under threat of contempt, to file an information without conducting his own independent preliminary investigation, as the discretion to prosecute is vested solely in the fiscal.

ISSUE

Whether a judge, after conducting a preliminary investigation and finding probable cause, can compel the provincial fiscal to file a corresponding information within a strict deadline under pain of contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of the Provincial Fiscal. The Court clarified that while Circuit Criminal Courts, at the time, possessed the same authority as Courts of First Instance to conduct preliminary investigations, the judge’s power ended with the determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. The subsequent duty to file an information is an executive function exclusively vested in the public prosecutor. The Court emphasized that the fiscal has “direction and control” over all criminal prosecutions. The filing of an information is a product of the fiscal’s own investigation and sound discretion. A judge’s finding of probable cause from a preliminary investigation does not bind the fiscal, who must exercise independent judgment. Therefore, respondent Judge Villaluz acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Fiscal to file the information within twenty-four hours and in threatening him with contempt for non-compliance. The Court underscored the distinction between the judicial function of determining probable cause for arrest and the executive function of determining the existence of a prima facie case for prosecution. The latter cannot be encroached upon by the judiciary. The challenged orders were annulled and set aside.