G.R. No. L-32849 July 31, 1984
QUIRICO A. ABELA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE CESARIO C. GOLEZ, Judge, Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch I, and AGUSTIN ALMALBIS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Agustin Almalbis filed a complaint for estafa against Virginia Anisco with the Office of the City Fiscal of Roxas City. The complaint stemmed from a business arrangement where Almalbis shipped fish to Anisco for sale in Manila. Anisco would remit proceeds, less commission and expenses, to Almalbis. To facilitate late remittances, Anisco provided Almalbis with a checkbook containing checks pre-signed in blank, authorizing Almalbis to fill in the amounts and payee details after each sale. Several of these checks, subsequently filled out by Almalbis, were dishonored for lack of funds.
After a preliminary investigation, City Fiscal Quirico A. Abela dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He concluded that the issuance of the blank checks was part of a business convenience arrangement and did not constitute deceit under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code for estafa. Almalbis then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance to compel Fiscal Abela to file the proper estafa case. The trial court, presided by Judge Cesario C. Golez, granted the petition and ordered Fiscal Abela to file the action.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a prosecuting fiscal to file an information for estafa after he has dismissed the complaint following a preliminary investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and set aside the decision of the trial court. The Court held that the duty of a prosecuting fiscal to file an information is not a ministerial duty but involves the exercise of sound discretion. A fiscal is not merely tasked to prosecute; he is equally bound to protect innocent persons from groundless prosecution. He must be personally convinced that the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and cannot control discretion, absent a showing of grave abuse thereof.
In this case, Fiscal Abela exercised his discretion based on his evaluation of the evidence. He determined that the element of deceit was absent, as the blank checks were issued under a pre-existing business arrangement for future transactions, not as payment for an obligation contracted at the time of issuance—a requisite under the pertinent estafa provision. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in this determination. The remedy for a complainant aggrieved by a fiscal’s dismissal is not mandamus but an appeal to the Secretary of Justice or the filing of an administrative charge, not judicial compulsion of the prosecutorial function.