G.R. No. L-15960. April 29, 1961.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN REGINALDO, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO PADRON, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

A complaint for double murder with assault upon an agent in authority was filed in the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, against Carlos Dacuycuy, Juan Reginaldo, and Pedro Padron. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the JP Court issued an order dated February 25, 1959, discharging accused Pedro Padron from the complaint due to a lack of evidence showing his participation. The case records were then remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
The Provincial Fiscal, conducting his own preliminary investigation, subsequently filed an information in the CFI for the same complex crime, charging Reginaldo and Dacuycuy as principals and Padron as an accomplice. The Fiscal moved for a warrant of arrest against Padron. The CFI denied the motion and, ultimately, dismissed the information as against Padron. The lower court held that once the JP Court had discharged an accused after investigation, the Provincial Fiscal could no longer conduct his own preliminary investigation under Republic Act No. 732 to include that accused in an information.

ISSUE

Whether a Provincial Fiscal may conduct an independent preliminary investigation and file an information against an accused who had been previously discharged by a Justice of the Peace Court after its preliminary investigation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the lower court. The legal logic establishes a clear distinction based on the outcome of the JP Court’s investigation. Republic Act No. 732 , which governs fiscals’ investigations, applies to cases originally instituted by them in the CFI. It does not apply when a case is begun in the JP Court and forwarded to the CFI after the JP finds a prima facie case or the accused waives investigation therein. In such instances, the fiscal may rely on the JP’s record and file an information without a new investigation.
However, the rule is different when the JP Court, after investigation, dismisses the charge against an accused. That dismissal renders the case as if no charge had ever been made against that person. Consequently, the Provincial Fiscal is not barred from initiating a new, independent preliminary investigation under Republic Act No. 732 (as amended by R.A. 1799) on the same charge. This investigation must be conducted in the presence of the accused only if the accused requests it. The fiscal’s authority to investigate is inherent and necessary to fulfill his duty to prosecute crime, and the JP’s prior dismissal does not constitute a final judgment on the merits or double jeopardy. The Court, citing the precedent in People v. Pervez, held that the fiscal acted within his authority, and the case was remanded for further proceedings against Padron.