G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MONICA ANINO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Monica Anino, the duly elected Barrio Captain of Barrio Villaflor, Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, was charged before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental with the crime of dereliction of official duty under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that during June, July, and August 1965, she allowed, encouraged, and tolerated illegal cockfights and a game of chance called “hantak,” collecting 20% of the proceeds for the barrio treasury, thereby violating her duty to enforce laws and maliciously refraining from prosecuting violators. Anino filed a motion to quash the information, which the CFI denied. She appealed, arguing that: (1) the filing of the case directly with the CFI contravened Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3590 (the Barrio Charter), which vests the Municipal Mayor with supervisory power and original jurisdiction to investigate complaints against barrio officials for neglect of duty; and (2) the CFI lacked original jurisdiction because the prescribed penalty for the crime (six months and one day to two years and four months) falls within the jurisdiction of municipal courts under Republic Act No. 3828 .

ISSUE

1. Whether the Provincial Fiscal acted legally in filing the criminal case directly with the Court of First Instance, bypassing the administrative investigation procedure for barrio officials under the Barrio Charter.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance had original jurisdiction over the case given the penalty prescribed for the crime.

RULING

1. Yes, the Provincial Fiscal acted legally. The Supreme Court held that the administrative investigation procedure under Section 12 of the Barrio Charter, which involves the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Council, is purely administrative in nature, limited to penalties like reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. It is distinct and separate from a criminal prosecution. When the alleged neglect of duty constitutes a transgression of penal laws, it becomes the duty of the prosecuting officer to institute criminal proceedings independently. The power of the Municipal Mayor is supervisory and analogous to that of a Provincial Governor over municipal officials; if the misconduct amounts to a crime, the matter should be referred to the Provincial Fiscal. To hold otherwise would tie the hands of the State’s prosecuting arms. Therefore, the Provincial Fiscal was correct in filing the case directly with the CFI.
2. Yes, the Court of First Instance had original jurisdiction. The Court explained that after the amendment by Republic Act No. 3828 , the jurisdiction of CFIs and municipal courts is concurrent for offenses where the penalty is imprisonment for more than six months but not exceeding three years, or a fine of more than P200 but not exceeding P3,000. The crime charged carries a penalty within this zone of concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, the CFI properly exercised its concurrent original jurisdiction, and the motion to quash on this ground was correctly denied. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.