G.R. No. L-46938 - JUNE 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-46938June 14, 1979 Evangelisto Racela vs. Agustin C. Bagasao G.R. No. L-30271June 15, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Dahil A.M. No. 1696June 19, 1979 Sancho Lawan vs. Antonio Moleta A.M. No. 242June 19, 1979 Maximo Ubas vs. Benito P. Cinco G.R. No. L-24045June 19, 1979 Percival Ricardo vs. Sec. of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. L-24810June 19, 1979 Mun. Treasurer of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-25847June 19, 1979 Potenciano Sunga vs. Benito De Guzman G.R. No. L-33496June 19, 1979 Nat'l. Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Court of Industrial Relation G.R. No. L-48948June 19, 1979 Florentino Enriquez vs. Nestor C. Rivera G.R. No. L-48962June 19, 1979 United Lumber & Gen. Workers of the Philippines (Ulgwp) vs. Carmelo C. Noriel A.M. No. 10469-MCJune 29, 1979 J. Cesar Sangco vs. Bienvenido G. Palileo A.M. No. 1810-CTJJune 29, 1979 Angelina S. Salcedo vs. Enrique B. Inting A.M. No. 690-CFIJune 29, 1979 Benito B. Nate vs. Hon. Enrique A. Agana, Sr. A.M. No. P-1622June 29, 1979 Leonarda Vda. De Malasarte vs. Librado Z. Yebes, et al. G.R. No. L-25954June 29, 1979 Catalina De Leon vs. Petronilo Castañeda G.R. No. L-26704June 29, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Dalmacio Sabenorio G.R. No. L-31384June 29, 1979 Commodity Financing Co., Inc., et al. vs. Jose B. Jimenez G.R. No. L-32562June 29, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio S. Cristobal, Jr. G.R. No. L-32574June 29, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Armando B. Estero G.R. No. L-32599June 29, 1979 Edgardo E. Mendoza vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta G.R. No. L-32832June 29, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Luis Beralde G.R. No. L-33115June 29, 1979 Misael P. Vera, et al. vs. Vicente N. Cusi Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-33213June 29, 1979 Artemio C. Reyes vs. Andres Sta. Maria G.R. No. L-35236June 29, 1979 Secretary of Education, et al vs. Magno S. Gatmaitan, et al. G.R. No. L-35666June 29, 1979 Marina B. Vargas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-36101June 29, 1979 Bonifacio Florendo vs. Javier G.R. No. L-39016June 29, 1979 Tamda Service Cooperative, Inc. vs. City Mayor, et al. G.R. No. L-40597June 29, 1979 Agustino B. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-42458June 29, 1979 Jose Salvador, Jr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-42508June 29, 1979 Maria D. Obor, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-44762June 29, 1979 Pedro Elegado vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-49462June 29, 1979 Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. L-49678June 29, 1979 Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. vs. Blas F. Ople, et al. G.R. No. L-50471June 29, 1979 Julio Salacup vs. Tomas P. Maddela, Jr. G.R. Nos. L-38145-48June 29, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Pableo A. Cabeltes G.R. Nos. L-48706-07June 29, 1979 Lourdes E. Bengzon vs. Amado G. Inciong The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Evangelisto Racela vs. Agustin C. Bagasao People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Dahil Sancho Lawan vs. Antonio Moleta Maximo Ubas vs. Benito P. Cinco Percival Ricardo vs. Sec. of Foreign Affairs Mun. Treasurer of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals Potenciano Sunga vs. Benito De Guzman Nat'l. Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Court of Industrial Relation Florentino Enriquez vs. Nestor C. Rivera United Lumber & Gen. Workers of the Philippines (Ulgwp) vs. Carmelo C. Noriel J. Cesar Sangco vs. Bienvenido G. Palileo Angelina S. Salcedo vs. Enrique B. Inting Benito B. Nate vs. Hon. Enrique A. Agana, Sr. Leonarda Vda. De Malasarte vs. Librado Z. Yebes, et al. Catalina De Leon vs. Petronilo Castañeda People of the Philippines vs. Dalmacio Sabenorio Commodity Financing Co., Inc., et al. vs. Jose B. Jimenez People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio S. Cristobal, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Armando B. Estero Edgardo E. Mendoza vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta People of the Philippines vs. Luis Beralde Misael P. Vera, et al. vs. Vicente N. Cusi Jr., et al. Artemio C. Reyes vs. Andres Sta. Maria Secretary of Education, et al vs. Magno S. Gatmaitan, et al. Marina B. Vargas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Bonifacio Florendo vs. Javier Tamda Service Cooperative, Inc. vs. City Mayor, et al. Agustino B. Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals Jose Salvador, Jr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Maria D. Obor, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Pedro Elegado vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. vs. Blas F. Ople, et al. Julio Salacup vs. Tomas P. Maddela, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Pableo A. Cabeltes Lourdes E. Bengzon vs. Amado G. Inciong The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-46938 June 14, 1979
EVANGELISTO RACELA,petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. AGUSTIN C. BAGASAO, Presiding Judge, Branch VI, Fourth Judicial District, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and ROLANDO FELICIANO,respondents.
Cornelio C. Cardenas and Valeriana Peralta for petitioner.
Raymundo Blanco for private respondent.
CONCEPCION JR.,J.:
Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of the respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss a criminal case for Libel, as well as the orders denying the motions for its reconsideration.ℒαwρhi৷
The March 20, 1976 issue of the Bulletin Today, a newspaper of general circulation throughout the Philippines, carried a news item entitled: "Olongapo stinks as trash piles up," imputing certain anomalies and violations of the contract for the collection of garbage in Olongapo City. Feeling aggrieved, the contractor, Rolando Feliciano, a resident of Malayantoc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, filed a complaint for Libel against Evangelisto Racela, a duly elected barangay captain and member of the City Sangguniang Bayan of Olongapo, and Roberto Flores, also a member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Olongapo City, with the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija. Since the accused are public officers, the Provincial Fiscal sought clearance and authority from the Secretary of Justice to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case,1but, the request was denied for the reason that the libelous imputations partake of the nature of absolutely privileged communication within the purview of the second paragraph of Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code since the statements were made during the special session of the City Sangguniang Bayan.2
Upon learning of such denial, Rolando Feliciano withdrew his complaint from the Fiscal's Office and filed the same directly with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.3The respondent judge, to whom the case was assigned, thereafter set the case for preliminary examination and investigation. The accused Evangelisto Racela objected and filed a motion to dismiss the case for the reason that a criminal complaint had been filed with the Fiscal's Office and the same is still pending therein,4but, the respondent court denied the motion for lack of merit.5Citing the case ofPeople vs. Hechanova,6the accused Racela filed a motion for the reconsideration of this order upon the ground that the respondent court has no jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case since a preliminary investigation had already been conducted by the Fiscal and the case was dismissed by the Secretary of Justice.7The respondent court, however, denied the motion, maintaining that it has the power and authority to conduct a preliminary examination and investigation of a case directly filed with it pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that the case ofPeople vs. Hechanova,cited by the accused is not applicable since the Fiscal in the present case, as contra distinguished from the cited case, has not yet conducted a preliminary investigation of the case, but merely made anex-partestudy of the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses.8Hence, the present petition.
Simplified, the issue is whether or not a judge of first instance may conduct a pre investigation of a libel case directly filed with the court. In a recent decision, in the case ofEscribano vs. Avila,9the Court categorically ruled that judges of first instance are vested with authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of a case for libel directly filed with the court since "the lawmaking body, by means of the amendment,10never intended to take away the jurisdiction of the proper Court of First Instance to conduct a preliminary investigation in libel cases, " and that the "amendment merely sought to strip the ordinary municipal court (not the municipal court of the provincial capital or the city court) of its power to hold a preliminary investigation of written defamations." Hence, the instant petition is without merit.
WHEREFORE,the petition should be, as it is hereby,DISMISSED.Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Antonio, (Acting Chairman),*Aquino, Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.
Footnotes