G.R. No. L-16050; July 31, 1962
MANUEL GRIÑEN, petitioner-appellant, vs. FILEMON R. CONSOLACION, as Iloilo City Fiscal, and PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE, respondent-appellees.

FACTS

Manuel Griñen, a former cashier of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Iloilo Branch, was removed from his position in December 1958. Subsequently, the PCSO Auditor, Aurelio Peña, forwarded a letter to the Iloilo City Fiscal, Filemon R. Consolacion. This letter reported a cash shortage involving a salesman and enclosed documents, including a bounced check. It specifically requested the Fiscal to evaluate the criminal liability of the involved parties and to “determine the extent of the liability of the suspended cashier Mr. Manuel Griñen for accepting said check with full knowledge that the maker has no deposit in the bank.” Based on this letter, the City Fiscal initiated a preliminary inquiry and subpoenaed Griñen and others to appear.
Griñen, through counsel, was notified of the investigation. Instead of appearing, he filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. He sought to restrain the City Fiscal from proceeding, arguing that the Fiscal lacked jurisdiction because no valid sworn complaint had been filed to initiate the investigation, and that there was no law under which he could be prosecuted. The lower court dismissed his petition, finding the Fiscal’s actions proper. Griñen appealed, reiterating his arguments on the invalidity of the complaint and the absence of a legal basis for prosecution.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Iloilo City Fiscal had the legal authority to conduct a preliminary investigation based on an unsworn letter-complaint from a government auditor.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the City Fiscal had full authority to conduct the preliminary inquiry. The legal logic centers on the nature of a public prosecutor’s investigative powers. The Court clarified that the “complaint” referred to in the Rules of Court, which must be sworn, is the formal charge or information filed in court after the preliminary investigation is concluded. The initiation of the investigation itself does not require a sworn written complaint from an aggrieved party.
The Court cited its precedent in Hernandez v. Albano, which held that fiscals are vested with the authority to investigate charges of crimes on their own initiative. A sworn complaint is only a prerequisite for offenses that cannot be prosecuted de officio (like some private crimes) or those requiring a complaint by a specific public officer. The letter from the PCSO Auditor, being an official communication alleging possible criminal acts involving public funds, was a sufficient basis for the Fiscal to commence a preliminary inquiry to determine if a prima facie case existed. The Court found no error in the lower court’s concise decision, as it addressed the core issue of the Fiscal’s jurisdiction based on the admitted letter-complaint. The claim that no law existed for prosecution was deemed untenable, as the investigation was precisely to ascertain what, if any, charges could be filed under the Revised Penal Code.