GR L 83996; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-83996 October 21, 1988
THE CITY FISCAL OF TACLOBAN, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO S. ESPINA, Judge, Regional Trial Court Branch 7, Government Center, Palo, Leyte; PC MAJOR FRANCISCO C. GEDORIO JR., Regional Staff Judge Advocate, 8th Regional Command, PC Hills, Palo, Leyte; EDUARDO TESADO and LUTHGARDO NIEDO and two (2) “JOHN DOES” respondents.
FACTS
The City Fiscal of Tacloban filed an information for murder against Eduardo Tesado and Luthgardo Niedo, both members of the Philippine Constabulary, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8410 and raffled to Branch 7 presided by respondent Judge Pedro S. Espina. The accused, through their counsel, filed a Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction invoking Presidential Decree No. 1850, which vests exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces and the Integrated National Police in courts-martial. The RTC granted the motion, dismissed the information, and ordered the case referred to the military tribunal.
The City Fiscal moved for reconsideration, arguing that the RTC retained jurisdiction and that P.D. No. 1850 was invalidated by the 1987 Constitution . The motion was denied. Consequently, the City Fiscal filed this petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the RTC orders and to have the case tried in the civilian court.
ISSUE
Whether the City Fiscal of Tacloban has the legal authority and personality to file the petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the City Fiscal lacked the authority to institute the action. The Court explained the delineation of prosecutorial representation. Under the Rules of Court, the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before trial courts such as the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Regional Trial Courts. However, when a criminal action is elevated to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, representation is exclusively vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The OSG is the statutory counsel for the Republic and its people in all appellate proceedings. Therefore, the City Fiscal had no legal personality to file the petition in the Supreme Court; only the Solicitor General could properly bring such an action on behalf of the People.
The Court further noted that the petition was filed without the requisite authority and against instructions from the Department of Justice. A Ministry Order required prior consultation with the Chief State Prosecutor and the Solicitor General before filing such petitions, a procedure the petitioner disregarded. Additionally, the petition was technically defective as it was filed in the name of the City Fiscal instead of the People of the Philippines and lacked certified true copies of the assailed orders as required by the rules. Consequently, the petition was summarily dismissed for lack of proper party and procedural infirmities.