G.R. No. L-12247; August 26, 1958
Beatriz Ramos Vda. de Bagatua, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Pedro A. Revilla and Leonias S. Lombos, as City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, respectively, of Quezon City, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners, Beatriz Ramos Vda. de Bagatua and her children, were co-owners of a registered lot. They engaged the services of real estate broker Burgos L. Pangilinan to subdivide the property. On June 29, 1954, the petitioners executed a public instrument, duly registered, selling a portion of the lot to Pangilinan for P6,000. Subsequently, on June 21, 1956, Rodrigo Bagatua, acting for himself and his sisters, filed a complaint for estafa against Pangilinan before the Quezon City Attorney, alleging that Pangilinan induced them to sign documents under the pretext they were for subdivision, but one was actually a deed of sale, causing them prejudice of P13,432. The Assistant City Attorney conducted a preliminary investigation, receiving testimonial and documentary evidence from both parties who were represented by counsel. After the parties submitted memoranda, the Assistant City Attorney recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, and the City Attorney dismissed it. The petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to compel the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney to file an information for estafa against Pangilinan, contending the dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing their duties involved discretion and were not ministerial, and that no grave abuse occurred. The lower court sustained the motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the estafa complaint against Burgos L. Pangilinan, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the filing of an information.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that under Section 28-(h) of the Revised Charter of Quezon City ( Republic Act No. 537 ) and Section 4, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, the City Attorney (or fiscal) has the authority and duty to investigate charges and prosecute crimes, but this power involves the exercise of discretion. A prosecuting officer is not compelled to file an information if, after a preliminary investigation, he is not convinced that the evidence establishes, at least prima facie, the guilt of the accused. The Court found no indication of grave abuse of discretion in the respondents’ dismissal of the complaint. The Assistant City Attorney’s memorandum, based on the evidence and investigation, provided sufficient reasons for dismissal. The petitioners’ argument that the absence of improper motive on their part should have led to a prima facie case was insufficient; all circumstances and evidence must be considered together. The Court emphasized that a fiscal’s evaluation of witness credibility and evidence, unless patently capricious or arbitrary, does not constitute abuse of discretion. The proper remedy for alleged malicious inaction by a prosecuting officer is the filing of criminal or administrative charges under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, not mandamus. Costs were imposed on the appellants.