G.R. No. L-21614; October 31, 1963
Mariquita Caparas, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Pedro D. Ofiana, as Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, Buenaventura F. Fernandez, and Major Gatchalian, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners were charged before the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan with violations of customs and revenue laws. During the preliminary investigation on January 10, 1963, they contested the Fiscal’s jurisdiction, asserting that the alleged offense was committed within Ilocos Sur. The Fiscal overruled this objection. Consequently, the petitioners filed an action for prohibition with a preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, seeking to restrain the Fiscal from proceeding with the investigation or filing an information. The lower court initially issued a restraining order but later dismissed the prohibition petition and lifted the order, prompting the petitioners’ appeal.
While this appeal was pending, the respondent Provincial Fiscal filed an information against the petitioners for the same charge, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5550 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The respondents then moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it had become academic since the jurisdictional issue could now be raised in the criminal case. The petitioners opposed the dismissal, contending the appeal should proceed and even requested the Supreme Court to issue a restraining order against the criminal proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal from the dismissal of the prohibition case has become academic and should be dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the appeal is dismissed as it has become moot and academic. The Court ruled that the sole purpose of the original prohibition action was to prevent the Provincial Fiscal from conducting the preliminary investigation and filing a criminal information. This objective was rendered obsolete when the Fiscal actually filed the information (Criminal Case No. 5550) during the pendency of the appeal. The legal logic is grounded in the nature and necessity of the remedy of prohibition. A special civil action for prohibition is only proper when the aggrieved party has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, such as an appeal, in the ordinary course of law.
The core question on appeal—the propriety of the lower court’s dismissal order—hinged entirely on the issue of whether the Bulacan Fiscal and court had jurisdiction over the offense. This identical jurisdictional challenge can now be directly raised and resolved within the criminal case itself. Since petitioners have an adequate legal avenue to assert their jurisdictional objection in Criminal Case No. 5550, continuing the prohibition appeal serves no practical purpose and would be a purely academic exercise. The Court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.