G.R. No. L-40552 August 20, 1975
DIOSDADO T. ABUGOTAL, petitioner, vs. HON. MEYNARDO A. TIRO, Judge, Circuit Criminal Court, 15th Judicial District, Cagayan de Oro City, NORBERTO DE LA CRUZ, alias Berting, ASTERIO HURTADO, alias Molino and ROSALIO MORALES, alias Rosing, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner City Fiscal Diosdado Abugotal filed an information for murder against private respondents through his 2nd Assistant Fiscal, Nicolas P. Tacondong, Jr., with the Circuit Criminal Court presided by respondent Judge Meynardo Tiro. The information included a certification under oath by Fiscal Tacondong, Jr., and was approved by petitioner Abugotal, stating that a preliminary investigation was conducted where the accused were given the chance to appear with counsel and submit counter-affidavits, but they did not do so.
Private respondents filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation to be conducted specifically by First Assistant City Fiscal Cenon Alaba, alleging bias on the part of Fiscal Tacondong, Jr., and claiming they were not afforded a proper preliminary investigation. Without any opposition to the motion for reinvestigation, respondent Judge granted it and ordered Fiscal Alaba to conduct the reinvestigation. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the preliminary investigation complied with Presidential Decree No. 77 and was carefully reviewed, but the judge denied it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering a reinvestigation and, specifically, in designating a particular assistant fiscal to conduct it.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the proper allocation of authority under Presidential Decree No. 77. The authority to conduct preliminary investigations is vested in the city fiscal or his assistants. As the chief of the office, the city fiscal has the prerogative to designate which assistant fiscal conducts an investigation. An assistant fiscal may file an information only for a case he personally investigated and only with the prior approval of the city fiscal, underscoring the fiscal’s control over his subordinates.
The sworn certification in the information, stating the procedural requirements were met, carries a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. This presumption binds the court. While a court may order a reinvestigation in the interest of justice, it cannot usurp the city fiscal’s administrative prerogative to choose which assistant will conduct it. That designation is an internal matter for the office of the fiscal, beyond judicial power.
Furthermore, the record indicated the accused were even allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses during the investigation—a right not granted by the summary nature of preliminary investigations—substantiating the claim of compliance with the law. The Court emphasized that a full trial is superior to a reinvestigation for ferreting out the truth, as it allows for direct examination and cross-examination. Therefore, the judge should have denied the reinvestigation and proceeded to trial immediately. The orders designating Fiscal Alaba were annulled.