GR L 53674; (July, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53674-75 July 11, 1988
People of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch VII, and Liberato Andaya, respondents.
FACTS
The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed two informations for grave threats and physical injuries against respondent Liberato Andaya, an elected municipal councilor, directly with the Municipal Court of Marilao. The municipal court admitted the informations, found probable cause, and issued a warrant of arrest. Andaya moved to quash, arguing the fiscal needed prior clearance from the Department of Local Government or Justice under Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 180, as amended by LOI No. 231, before filing charges against an elective official. The municipal court denied the motion, ruling the LOIs applied only to preliminary investigations by executive officers, not to courts conducting preliminary examinations. Andaya was tried and convicted. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), he did not raise the clearance issue.
ISSUE
Whether the failure to secure prior clearance under LOI Nos. 180 and 231 deprived the municipal court of jurisdiction, justifying the CFI’s dismissal of the criminal cases.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling the respondent CFI committed grave abuse of discretion. LOI No. 180 was a directive from the President addressed solely to the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice, and Local Government, governing investigations and arrests by military and fiscal authorities within the executive branch. LOI No. 231 explicitly clarified that its provisions, and those of related LOIs, “shall not be construed as affecting jurisdiction of regular courts of justice under existing laws.” The clearance requirement was an administrative condition for executive officials, not a jurisdictional prerequisite for courts. A judge conducting a preliminary examination or investigation exercises a judicial function inherent to the court’s authority. The CFI’s capricious dismissal, based on a misapplication of the LOIs to the judiciary, deprived the State of due process and was therefore null and void. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.