10 Guingona JR V City Fiscal of Manila

 

Guingona, Jr., Martin and Santos V. City Fiscal of Manila July 18 1985 | Aquino Injunction and writs of restraint only in proper cases TBT DOCTRINE: As a general rule, an injunction will not be granted to rrestrain estrain a criminal prosecution. With more reason will injunction not lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage. CASE SUMMARY: The court denied the petition for prohibition/ injunction filed by the petitioners on the ground that the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage.  FACTS:

- 

-  - 

- 

- 

- 

Clement David and his sister Denise Kuhne invested in Nation Savings and Loan Association, Inc. Placements made amounted to the total sum of P1,145,546.20. o  He and his sister Denise also had savings deposits in the Nation Savings in the sum of P13,531.94 o  o  They also invested in Nation Savings US$75,000 in 1980 of which $50,000 was deposited in the account of Teofisto Guingona, Jr. with the Security Bank and Trust Company. Aggregate investments of David and Kuhne in Nation Savings amounted to: P1,159,078.14 in local o  currency and 75,000 in U.S. dollars. At the time the deposits were made, Antonio I. Martin was the president of Nation Savings, Teresita G. Santos was its general manager, and Guingona was a director. Eventually, Nation Savings was placed under receivership due to serious frauds and irregularities committed by its key officers. Guingona and Martin executed a promissory note acknowledging a debt of of P1,336,614.02 and $75,000 o  to be paid in installments –  Guingona  Guingona acknowledged ½ of the obligation as his debt while Martin assumed the other ½. David received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of the placements made by him and his sister were entered in the NSLA record. The director of the CB Department of Rural Banks and Savings and Loan Associations in a report dated June 23, 1981 recommended that the irregularities be brought to the attention of the CB consultant on criminal cases for appropriate investigation of Nation Savings’ officials David then filed with the City Fiscal’s Office in Manila a complaint for estafa and violation of CB Circular No. 364 and related regulations. o  He claimed that the difference between his placements of P1,159,078.14 and $75,000, on one hand, and the sum of P305,821.92, the amount entered in Nation Savings’ books, on the other hand, constitutes the defraudation against him. He filed the complaint against Guingona, as board chairman, director and principal stockholder of Nation o  Savings; Martin, as vice-president, director and shareholder, and Santos, as general manager. Guingona Jr., et al. filed a petition for prohibition against the City Fiscal of Manila because bec ause theft obligation is allegedly civil in character and because of the adverse publicity supposedly instigated by David.

ISSUE: Whether Guingona’s petition for prohibition may prosper against the City Fiscal of Manila? No.  RULING:

-  -  - 

Guingona, Martin and Santos have no cause of action for prohibition because the City Fiscal has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. It has not been finished. This case is premature o  As a general rule, an injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution. With more reason will injunction not lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage. This Court will not usurp the primary function of the City Fiscal to conduct the preliminary investigation of the estafa charge and of the petitioners’ countercharge for perjury, which was consolidated with the estafa charge   factual findings. This o  The City Fiscal’s office should be allowed to finish its investigation and make its Court should not conduct the preliminary investigation. It is not a trier of facts. o

instant is primarily a litigation between and the petitioners. The fact that the not Solicitor   The General, as case counsel of the public respondents, didDavid not file a motion for reconsideration does estop

David from continuing with the prosecution of the petitioners. In the present posture of the case, the City Fiscal occupies the analogous position of judge. He has to o 

 

 

maintain an attitude of neutrality, not that of partiality. DISPOSITION: In view of the foregoing considerations, considerations, the decision is reconsidered, the petition is dismissed and the City Fiscal of Manila is directed to finish the preliminary investigation. No costs.

SO ORDERED. RELEVANT PROVISIONS CITED: SEC. 4. Duty of investigating investigating fiscal. —   — IIff the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall  prepare the resolution and corresponding inform information. ation. He shall certify under under oath that he has examined the the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the ac accused cused is  probably guilty thereof, thereof, that the accused was informed informed of the complaint and of th thee evidence submitted against against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controvertin controverting g evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately informing the parties of said action.  No complaint or information information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating ffiscal iscal without the prior prior written authority or or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor. Where the investigating fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary investigation. If upon petition by a proper party, the Minister of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chie chieff state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conduct conducting ing another  preliminary investigation investigation or to dismiss dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint complaint or information. (5a) (Rule 112 of the 198 1985 5 Rules of Criminal Procedure).