G.R. No. L-67540




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-67540 January 17, 1985 FLORENDA SALCEDO, petitioner, vs. HON. ESTHER NOBLES BANS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch LXXII, Olongapo City and HOWARD ALEXANDER & RICHARD ROYNON, respondents. Estanislao L. Cesa, Jr. for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondents. R E S O L U T I O N MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: A Petition for certiorari calling for the interpretation of Section 9 of the Rule of Summary Procedure in Special Cases, as amended. Although Municipal Trial Court Judge of Olongapo City, Alex C. Almario, was originally included as one of the petitioners, his name is hereby ordered stricken for having been mis-joined. On November 15, 1983, private petitioner, Florenda Salcedo, filed a Complaint for Grave Coercion against private respondent, Howard Alexander, before the Municipal Trial Court in Olongapo City, Branch I, (Civil Case No. 1176-83). This was followed on November 23, 1983 by another Complaint against private respondent, Richard Roynon, for Unjust Vexation (Civil Case No. 1220-83), before the same Court. The Presiding Judge of said Court considered the two cases as falling within the new Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, and ordered private respondents to appear and submit their counter-affidavits within ten days from receipt of notice. Private respondents filed Identical Motions to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court because what were before it were Complaints filed by private petitioner and not Informations filed by the Fiscal as required by Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases. In an Order, dated December 7, 1983, the Municipal Trial Court Judge denied both Motions to Dismiss and gave private respondents up to December 16, 1983 within which to file their counter-affidavits. In another Order, a Motion for Reconsideration was denied and the Municipal Trial Court Judge set the cases for arraignment and preliminary conference. Private respondents then filed a "Petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Writ of Preliminary Injunction," before the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXII, Olongapo City (Case No. 25-0-84), presided by the public respondent herein. On April 4, 1984, respondent Judge issued the assailed consolidated Order, which decreed: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby ordered declaring the contested Orders issued by the respondent Judge Honorable Alex C. Almario in Criminal Cases No. 1176-83 and No. 1220-83 null and void; enjoining the respondent Honorable Judge to desist from taking further proceedings in said cases, and making the injunction permanent. With costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Hence, this Petition where the issue presented is whether or not the filing of an Information as required in Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure is jurisdictional. Said provision reads: Section 9. How commenced. — The prosecution of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or information filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation; Provided however, that in Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information; provided further, that when the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio, the corresponding complaint shall be signed and sworn to before the Fiscal by the offended party. ... (Emphasis supplied). There is no question that the subject criminal cases are cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court in Olongapo City under Section 1-B (4) of said Rule. 1 There is no question either regarding the applicability of the aforequoted Section 9. Olongapo being a chartered city, the prosecution of criminal cases covered by the Rule before said Court is to be initiated by Information. However, as opined by the Solicitor General in his Comment, the requirement in Section 9 "... that in Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, such cases shall be commenced only by Information ...", is not a jurisdictional requirement but a procedural rule. It prescribes the manner of commencing a criminal case covered by the Rule, as indicated in its very title. It designates the specific pleading to be filed in Court to commence a criminal case. This is so for jurisdiction is and may be conferred only by law. The Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, by its very title, does not determine jurisdiction of the Courts therein covered. Neither can it affect said jurisdiction because the same is governed by the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP Blg. 129) which defines the jurisdiction of the lower Court, 2 although it could be unavoidable that the question of jurisdiction of a Court taking cognizance of a particular case could be involved. Considering that the filing of an Information is not a jurisdictional requirement, respondent Judge erred in sustaining the Motions to Dismiss the two cases at bar and in declaring the contested Orders of the Municipal Trial Judge nun and void. The proper procedure should have been, without dismissing the cases, to have referred them to the City Fiscal for the filing of the corresponding Informations if the evidence so warranted. Petitioner urges, however, that the direct filing of a criminal Complaint by an offended party with the Municipal Trial Court in Olongapo City is proper under Section 84 of Republic Act No. 4645, the City of Olongapo Charter, which reads: SEC. 84. Jurisdiction of City Court. — The City Court shall have the same jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases and the same incidental powers as are at present or hereafter conferred by law. It may also conduct the preliminary investigations for any offense without regard to the limits of punishment, and may release, or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court. (Emphasis suuplied) Petitioner submits that by virtue of said provision, "the offended party can file directly a criminal complaint with the lower Court which complaint, as held in Tabil vs. Ong, L-46773, 91 SCRA 451 (1979), can be the basis of trial on the merits if the offense is cognizable by the lower Court." It is then argued that "if this complaint can be the basis of trial on the merits, there is no justification why the same complaint cannot commence proceedings under the Rule on Summary Procedure since its filing has basis under Section 84." That such is the practice being followed in the Municipal Trial Court in Olongapo City is shown by the listing by the Clerk of Court of said Court of criminal cases directly filed with that Court and being taken cognizance of under the Rule on Summary Procedure since August, 1983 when said Rule became effective. There is no question that under the Olongapo City Charter, the Municipal Trial Court can conduct preliminary investigation of all offenses. That is substantive law. However, pursuant to our constitutional supervision over all Courts, 3 as a matter of policy, 4 we direct the Municipal Trial Court in the City of Olongapo, whenever a criminal case covered by the Rule is initiated by complaint, to refer the same to the City Fiscal for the firing of the corresponding Information, and not to dismiss the case. That would be in keeping with the spirit in which the Rule on Summary Procedure was conceived, and would help ensure the attainment of the expected benefits from the reorganization of the judicial system. ACCORDINGLY, the assailed Order of respondent Judge dated April 4, 1984, is hereby SET ASIDE and the Municipal Trial Court in Olongapo City is hereby directed to refer the Complaints in question to the City Fiscal of Olongapo City for the filing of the corresponding Informations, if so warranted. It follows that, in the meantime, said Court shall suspend further hearings on the subject criminal cases. No costs. SOORDERED. Plana, Relovo, Gutierrez, Jr. and de la Fuente, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: The primary function of courts is to try and decide cases, not to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, in Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases effective August 1, 1983, the Court provided expressly that "in Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, (criminal) cases shall be commenced only by information" at the instance of the metropolitan municipal trial court judges themselves who feared that they would be swamped with preliminary investigations which they would have to conduct (instead of the cities' fiscals) if criminal complaints were to be directly filed with them. The Court has likewise adopted the same rule and policy in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure effective January 1, 1985 governing the institution of all other offenses that "in Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal." (Rule 110, sec. 1[b]). Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: The primary function of courts is to try and decide cases, not to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, in Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases effective August 1, 1983, the Court provided expressly that "in Metropolitan Manila and chartered cities, (criminal) cases shall be commenced only by information" at the instance of the metropolitan municipal trial court judges themselves who feared that they would be swamped with preliminary investigations which they would have to conduct (instead of the cities' fiscals) if criminal complaints were to be directly filed with them. The Court has likewise adopted the same rule and policy in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure effective January 1, 1985 governing the institution of all other offenses that "in Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal." (Rule 110, sec. 1[b]). Footnotes 1 Section 1. Scope. — The Rule shall govern the procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases: xxx xxx xxx B. Criminal Cases: xxx xxx xxx 4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom; ... 2 See Valdepeñas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871, 876 (1966). 3 Section 6, Article X, 1973 Constitution. 4 See Collector of Customs vs. Hon. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation