G.R. No. 53674-75, July 11, 1998
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch VII, Presided Over by the Hon. Minerva C. Genovea, and Liberato Andaya, Respondents.

FACTS

On November 6, 1974, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed two separate informations with the municipal court of Marilao, Bulacan, charging private respondent Liberato Andaya, an elected councilor, with grave threats and physical injuries. The municipal court admitted the informations, ordered his arrest, and set bail. Andaya filed a motion to quash, arguing the fiscal lacked authority to file the informations without prior clearance from the Department of Local Government or Department of Justice as required by Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 180 (as amended by LOI No. 231) for elective officials. The municipal court denied the motion, ruling LOI Nos. 180 and 231 applied only to preliminary investigations by fiscals, not to cases where the court conducts preliminary examinations. Andaya was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and after trial, was convicted by the municipal court on November 15, 1977. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), Andaya did not raise the issue of lack of clearance or jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the CFI, on January 14, 1980, dismissed both cases, not on the merits, but for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the municipal court in conducting the preliminary examination without prior clearance under LOI No. 180. The CFI denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether failure to comply with LOI No. 180’s clearance requirement divested the courts of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal cases.

RULING

1. No. Failure to comply with LOI No. 180’s clearance requirement did not divest the courts of jurisdiction. LOI No. 180, issued to the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice, and Local Government and Community Development, is a directive for officials under the executive branch. Courts are not under these departments or the executive branch. LOI No. 231 explicitly stated its provisions “shall not be construed as affecting jurisdiction of regular courts of justice under existing laws.” The clearance requirement is not jurisdictional. Only a law can define and limit court jurisdiction. The Secretary of Justice, in opinions dated October 10 and 11, 1974, stated LOI No. 180 applied only to investigations by the military or fiscals, not to preliminary investigations conducted by courts.
2. Yes. The respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Its dismissal was capricious, deprived the State of due process, and was void. The court ignored the clear scope of the LOIs and the Secretary of Justice’s opinions. Such a dismissal cannot terminate proceedings or support a double jeopardy claim. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CFI’s decision and order, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.