GR L 14901; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14901; April 25, 1960
VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. MANUEL SAGALES, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
In April 1958, respondent Manuel Sagales filed a complaint with the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan against petitioners, charging them with violating Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code (altering/removing a boundary mark). The fiscal assigned the case to a special counsel for investigation. On June 20, 1958, while the fiscal’s investigation was still pending, Sagales filed a separate complaint for the same offense directly with the Justice of the Peace Court of Bulacan. Petitioners moved to quash the complaint in the justice of the peace court, arguing it lacked jurisdiction because the case was initiated by a complaint rather than an information. The motion was denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, alleging lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the justice of the peace court, given that the provincial fiscal had not yet concluded his investigation. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the justice of the peace court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the complaint filed directly by the offended party, despite a pending investigation by the provincial fiscal for the same offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, holding that the justice of the peace court did not commit any error. The Court noted that the offense charged (a violation of Article 313 of the Revised Penal Code) is a slight offense punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱100, and it prescribes in two months under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The alleged act occurred on April 23, 1958, and the complaint was filed with the justice of the peace court on June 20, 1958, near the end of the prescriptive period. The Court ruled that there is no law granting a provincial fiscal exclusive right to investigate a charge. While the fiscal has a duty to investigate, inaction or delay that jeopardizes the complainant’s rights does not preclude the offended party from taking direct action to prevent the crime from prescribing. Respondent Sagales acted properly to protect his right to vindication. Thus, the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.