G.R. No. L-41114 June 21, 1988
ROBERTO V. JUSTINIANI and VICENTE ALACAPA, petitioners, vs. B. JOSE CASTILLO, in his capacity as Provincial Fiscal of the Province of Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Roberto Justiniani and Vicente Alacapa filed a civil complaint for damages for physical injuries against Brig. Gen. Montoya before the CFI of Negros Occidental. In response, Gen. Montoya filed a criminal complaint for libel against the petitioners before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, alleging that the allegations in the civil complaint constituted libelous publications. The respondent Fiscal, Jose Castillo, assumed jurisdiction and scheduled a preliminary investigation.
The petitioners, alleging they were not furnished copies of the libel complaint and that Justiniani was bedridden, requested copies and subsequently filed a petition for prohibition with this Court. They sought to permanently enjoin the preliminary investigation, arguing that the statements in their civil complaint were privileged communications and thus could not be libelous. This Court issued a temporary restraining order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Provincial Fiscal may be perpetually enjoined from conducting a preliminary investigation on the libel complaint based on statements made in a pleading from a separate civil case.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Fiscal may be enjoined. The legal logic proceeds from the doctrine of absolute privilege for statements in judicial pleadings. Established jurisprudence, notably Sison v. David, holds that statements made in a pleading are absolutely privileged and cannot found a libel action, provided they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry. The test is relevancy and materiality, not the truth or malice of the statements.
Examining the specific allegations from the civil complaint quoted by the respondent, the Court found them to be pertinent and material. Although harsh and antagonistic, describing acts as “barbarically” done, reminiscent of “Kempetai and Gestapo technique,” and “animalistic,” the statements were descriptive of the manner the alleged injuries were inflicted and were used to emphasize the abuse of position by a public official. They were relevant to proving the cause of action and the claim for moral damages. Consequently, these allegations are privileged and not actionable.
On the procedural issue, while injunction generally does not lie to restrain criminal prosecution, exceptions exist as outlined in Hernandez v. Albano. These include preventing oppressive use of the law and serving the orderly administration of justice. Since the Court ruled the statements are privileged and no crime can be founded upon them, conducting a preliminary investigation would be a futile endeavor. To allow it would subvert orderly justice. Therefore, prohibition is the proper remedy to permanently enjoin the respondent Fiscal from proceeding. The petition is granted and the preliminary investigation is ordered dismissed.