G.R. No. L-30485 May 31, 1984
BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch X), and LUCIO ADRIANO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Provincial Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino filed an information for estafa through falsification of public documents against several individuals, including Lucio Adriano, Jr., concerning a land resurvey in Muntinlupa. After a preliminary investigation, Fiscal Aquino, in a June 20, 1968 indorsement to the Secretary of Justice, stated a strong prima facie case existed against Land Registration Commissioner Antonio Noblejas and recommended filing charges. However, in a subsequent September 2, 1968 memorandum, Aquino reconsidered, finding Noblejas’s responsibility to be only administrative, and filed the information without including Noblejas as an accused.
Adriano, Jr., a defendant in the criminal case, filed a petition for mandamus in a separate civil case before respondent Judge Herminio C. Mariano. He sought to compel Fiscal Aquino to include Commissioner Noblejas and all others mentioned in the June 20 indorsement as accused. The respondent judge granted the petition and ordered the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Fiscal Aquino filed this petition for review, seeking to set aside that decision.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a provincial fiscal to include a specific person as an accused in a criminal information.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the respondent judge. The Court ruled that mandamus is an extraordinary writ issuable only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The duty of the fiscal to prosecute is discretionary, and mandamus will not lie to control such discretion absent a grave abuse.
The legal logic is clear: before resorting to mandamus, a party must exhaust all ordinary remedies. In this case, private respondent Adriano, Jr. failed to do so. He did not first file a simple motion in the pending criminal case (Criminal Case No. 18425) requesting the fiscal to include Noblejas. Had he done so and been denied, he could have appealed to the Secretary of Justice for possible reversal or designation of another prosecutor. This administrative recourse is plainer, speedier, and more adequate than a separate mandamus suit, as it avoids multiplicity of proceedings, additional docket fees, and procedural delays.
The Court emphasized that the filing of a motion in the criminal case is a sufficient remedy at law. The respondent’s failure to avail himself of this remedy is fatal to his mandamus action. The writ of mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for this available and expedient ordinary remedy. The decision underscores the principle that extraordinary writs are remedies of last resort, not first recourse.