People v Inting 187 SCRA 788

FACTS:

1.    February 6, 1988 | Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of with the (COMELEC), for allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.

2.    COMELEC, acting on the complaint, directed the Provincial Election Supervisor of Dumaguete City:

a.    (1) to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case;

b.    (2) to prepare and file the necessary information in court;

c.     (3) to handle the prosecution if the evidence submitted shows a prima facie case and

d.    (4) to issue a resolution of prosecution or dismissal as the case may be.

3.    After a preliminary investigation of Barba's complaint, Atty. Lituanas filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case for violation of Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor.

RTC: issued a warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor.

4.    But before the accused could be arrested, the trial court set aside its order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

5.    The court stated that it "will give due course to the information filed in this case if the same has the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal after which the prosecution of the case shall be under the supervision and control of the latter."

6.    Atty. Lituanas failed to secure the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal. RTC quashed the information.

7.    MR - DENIED

ISSUE: W/N A preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not probable cause exists?


HELD: NO


[ART 9C SEC2] In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not only to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws.

This means that the COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC.

Hence, the Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor files an information charging an election offense or prosecutes a violation of election law, it is because he has been deputized by the COMELEC. He does not do so under the sole authority of his office.

Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable as provided for in the preceding section, and to prosecute the same: Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any complaint within two (2) months from filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the Office of the Fiscal or with the Department of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.

The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.

It is only after a preliminary examination conducted by the COMELEC through its officials or its deputies that section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution comes in. This is so, because, when the application for a warrant of arrest is made and the information is filed with the court, the judge will then determine whether or not a probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

DIFF BET. PROBABLE CAUSE determined by a Judge and Public Prosecutor

ART 3 SEC 2 PROVIDES: “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge ... "

First, the determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination.

Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual.

It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination.

And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released.


The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge (JUDICIAL IN NATURE). The preliminary investigation proper-whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is the function of the Prosecutor (EXECUTIVE IN NATURE).