G.R. No. L-19600; July 19, 1967
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF QUEZON, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR VICENTE ORENDAIN, JR., petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, as Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, FILEMON JUNTEREAL, ELENO M. JOYAS, FIDEL FARAON, JESUS OROZCO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

1. On July 26, 1961, respondent Judge Enrique Maglanoc promulgated a decision in Cadastral Case No. 90 adjudicating Lot No. 7719 to claimant Leon Faraon. The decision was later amended on September 6, 1961.
2. On October 4, 1961, Leon Faraon executed a sworn statement denying he was the petitioner/claimant in that cadastral case or that he appeared and testified therein.
3. Due to these peculiar circumstances, then Secretary of Justice Alejo Mabanag, acting under Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, issued Administrative Order No. 300 on December 6, 1961. The order designated Attorneys Fernando de Leon and Vicente Orendain, Jr. as special prosecutors to assist the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon in prosecuting court personnel and specifically named individuals (respondents Filemon Juntereal, Eleno Joyas, Fidel Faraon, Jesus Orozco, and others) for alleged falsification of public documents, false testimony, and other offenses related to the promulgation of decisions in cadastral cases.
4. On January 3, 1962, Special Prosecutor Vicente Orendain, Jr. began the investigation pursuant to the Administrative Order. On the same day, the named individuals filed a petition for prohibition before respondent Judge (Special Civil Action No. 6461), challenging Orendain’s authority and the legality of the investigation.
5. On January 4, 1962, respondent Judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the petitioners (the Secretary of Justice, Provincial Fiscal, and Special Prosecutor), restraining them from conducting the preliminary investigation, and an order to answer the petition.
6. Orendain moved to set aside the orders, and upon denial, elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction that restrained the special prosecutors from conducting a preliminary investigation based on Administrative Order No. 300.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the writ of certiorari and SET ASIDE the order for the writ of preliminary injunction and the writ itself.
1. On the authority of the special prosecutor to conduct the investigation without the Provincial Fiscal’s presence: The Court held the respondent Judge’s order was a grave abuse of discretion. Citing People vs. Henderson, the Court ruled that a lawyer appointed by the Secretary of Justice under Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code to assist a Fiscal is authorized to sign informations, make investigations, and conduct prosecutions. Such a special prosecutor does not need the Fiscal’s consent to start a prosecution, and by extension, the Fiscal’s physical presence is not indispensable. To require otherwise would defeat the purpose of the designation, especially if the Fiscal is indifferent or uncooperative.
2. On the existence of a prejudicial question because a petition for reopening the cadastral case was pending: The Court held this contention was without merit. The possible criminal liability of the respondents under investigation was not an issue in the pending petition for reopening filed by the Director of Forestry. That petition alleged fraud by the claimant Leon Faraon, with no reference to the participation of the respondents under investigation. A judgment in the cadastral case would not be conclusive on the guilt or innocence of said respondents. Therefore, no prejudicial question existed.
Costs were awarded against the private respondents, excluding the Judge.