[ G.R. No. L-1156. July 31, 1947 ] 78 Phil. 827
[ G.R. No. L-1156. July 31, 1947 ]
RICARDO ESPIRITU, PETITIONER, VS. M.L. DE LA ROSA, AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for a writ to compel the respondent, as executive judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, to direct the clerk “to receive and docket the criminal complaint filed by petitioner against Judge Crisanto Aragon; to refer the same thereafter to the City Fiscal for preliminary investigation, or to conduct the preliminary investigation himself as the law provides.”
Petitioner subscribed and swore a complaint for falsification of public document against Judge Crisanto Aragon of the Municipal Court of Manila (Exhibit A). The clerk of court referred it to the respondent as executive judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. On 4 November 1946, the date the complaint was presented to the clerk, there also were presented the appearance of an attorney for the complainant (Exhibit B) and a motion praying that the complaint be referred to the City Fiscal for investigation (Exhibit C). On 6 November 1946, the docketing of the complaint by the clerk and reference thereof to the City Fiscal were denied by the respondent judge (Exhibit E).
Petitioner claims that the order denying his prayer to direct the clerk to docket the complaint, to refer it to the City Fiscal for investigation, or to investigate the case himself (respondent), constitutes an unlawful neglect in the performance of his duties, specifically enjoined by law, resulting from the office of the respondent, and unlawfully excludes him (petitioner) from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled; and that against such order he has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner contends that the respondent judge is in duty bound either to refer the complaint to the City Fiscal pursuant to section 2, Rule 108, or to conduct a preliminary investigation himself, as provided for in section 4 of said rule, and that a complaint cannot be filed with the City Fiscal because it is an executive office and not a court of justice. He further contends that the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, regarding the power of the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations were repealed by the new Rules of Court.
The same question had been raised in Hashim vs. Boncan and City Fiscal of Manila (71 Phil., 216), and this Court held that the new Rules of Court had not repealed and supplanted the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code regarding the power and authority of the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations. This Court said:
“It is contended, however, that existing legislation authorizing the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations should be deemed repealed and supplanted by the new Rules of Court. Otherwise, it is said, there would be no uniformity in said Rules as ordained by the Constitution. We do not share this view. * * *
“The framers of the Rules could not have intended to brush aside these lessons of experience and to tear down an institution recognized by law and decision and sanctioned by years of settled practice. They could not have failed to keep intact an effective machinery in the administration of criminal justice, as expeditious and simple as any reform they have infused into the new Rules. * * *.”
The power or authority of the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations for crimes, misdemeanors and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city is confirmed by section 2, Rule 108, which provides that “Every justice of the peace, municipal judge or city fiscal shall have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of all offenses * * *.”
It is not correct to say that a complaint, as defined in section 2, Rule 106, must be filed with a court of justice, because said section which provides that “Complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other employee of the government or governmental institution in charge of the enforcement or execution of the law violated,” does not require that it be filed with a court of justice. Unlike section 3 of said rule which requires an information to be “filed with the court,” a complaint need not necessarily be filed with the court. Hence it may be laid before the City Fiscal for investigation.
Petitioner having failed to show that it is the duty of the respondent judge to direct the clerk to docket the complaint subscribed and sworn to by him, to refer it to the City Fiscal for investigation, or to conduct an investigation himself, is not entitled to the remedy prayed for.
Petition is dismissed, without costs.
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Hontiveros, and Tuason, JJ., concur.