Luciano vs. Marciano

Rebosa, Dante E.
G.R. No. L-32950 July 30, 1971

JOSE C. LUCIANO vs. HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO
Facts:
Prior to his assumption of the mayorship, petitioner Luciano, together
with Florentino S. Rolls, were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Law.
To forestall his suspension from public office, Luciano filed a petition for
prohibition... to have said information declared null and void based on the
allegations that the disputed information, although dated 29 May 1969, was
actually transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Rizal only on 30 May 1969,
the very day when the respondent fiscal took his oath of office as judge and that
such criminal information was filed without the respondent fiscal having
conducted a preliminary investigation and without giving the accused
(petitioner) notice and opportunity to be heard. This Court dismissed the
petition, but without prejudice to petitioner's filing with the court a quo of an
appropriate motion for the conducting of a preliminary investigation and for the
suspension in the meantime of criminal proceedings.
Nevertheless, considering that said fiscal had been appointed to the
judiciary, the court ventured the opinion that there was nothing wrong in the
incumbent Provincial Fiscal's conducting a reinvestigation or review of the
evidence in the hands of the prosecution. Thus, the latter was given 30 days
from receipt of the order within which to signify in writing whether or not he
deemed it necessary to conduct a reinvestigation
Luciano filed a request for the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation
and/or reinvestigation. Because of these incidents, petitioner's arraignment had
to be postponed several times. The Provincial Fiscal granted petitioner's request
for reinvestigation, the court being notified thereof.
In a written manifestation, the Provincial Fiscal informed the court that he
had conducted a preliminary investigation and/or reinvestigation of the case,
with notice to the parties. Counsel for the petitioner manifested that the
evidence previously submitted to State Prosecutor Edilberto Barot, Jr. be
considered and upon receipt of the respective memoranda of the Police
Commission and the petitioner, the case be deemed submitted for resolution;
and that taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence previously adduced
together with the memoranda of the Police Commission and the petitioner, he
(the fiscal) believed that there existed sufficient evidence to establish prima
facie the guilt of the accused.
1. TOPIC: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a proper conduct of Preliminary

Investigation/Reinvestigation.
Prosecution’s Contention:
At the reinvestigation conducted, the accused instead of presenting evidence in their

defense in order to offset the evidence of the prosecution, merely submitted the evidence
presented at the preliminary investigation conducted by State Prosecutor Barot, and rested
their fate in the hands of Provincial Fiscal Castillo, knowing that he may decide the matter
for or against the accused. Notwithstanding the fact that all the opportunities were open at
the reinvestigation for the accused to exercise their rights afforded them by law, the accused
folded their arms and chose not to exercise such rights. Now that the Fiscal has manifested
that based on the evidence presented at the reinvestigation, he believes that a prima facie
case exists against the accused, they cannot anymore invoke the same rights and press for
another preliminary investigation. The provincial Fiscal is not bound by the qualification of
the crime designated in the complaint filed with his Office. Rather, he is guided by the
evidence presented in the course of a preliminary investigation and on the basis of which he
may formulate and designate the offense and file the corresponding information.
Defense’s Contention:
The petitioner claimed that no preliminary investigation was conducted in

accordance with law.
Court’s Ruling:
Under the facts and circumstances here obtaining, as discussed hereinabove, the
Court finds that since the information for alleged violation of the Anti-graft Law was filed
without any previous notice to petitioners and due preliminary investigation thereof, and
despite the dismissal of the original charge for falsification as being "without any factual or
legal basis", petitioners are entitled to a new preliminary investigation for the graft charge,
with all the rights to which they are entitled under section 1 of Republic Act No. 5180,
approved September 8, 1967, as invoked by them anew from respondent court, viz, the
submittal of the testimonies in affidavit form of the complainant and his witnesses duly sworn
to before the investigating fiscal, and the right of accused, through counsel, to cross-
examine them and to adduce evidence in their defense.
The Court finds that since the information for alleged violation of the Anti-
Graft Law was filed without any previous notice to petitioners and due
preliminary investigation thereof, and despite the dismissal of the original
charge for falsification as being "without any factual or legal basis", petitioners
are entitled to a new preliminary investigation for the graft charge, with all the
rights to which they are entitled under section 1 of Republic Act No. 5180
2. TOPIC: INFORMATION (VALIDITY)
ISSUE: Whether or not the Information filed was valid.
Prosecution’s Contention:
No doubt a cursory reading of the information filed in this case will show
that it is sufficient in form and substance because it contains all the elements
prescribed by law, to wit: the designation of the offense by the statute, the
name of the accused, the act or omission complained of as constituting the
offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed. The
Court cannot, therefore, but rule that the information is valid and the Court
having found, as above stated, that proper preliminary investigation had been
conducted, what remains for the Court to do is to try the case on the merits.
Defense’s Contention:
That criminal information was filed without the respondent fiscal having
conducted a preliminary investigation and without giving the accused
(petitioner) notice and opportunity to be heard.
Court’s Ruling:
Respondent court evidently failed to appreciate the full import of this

Court's resolution of August 31, 1970 that it hold a hearing at which "petitioners'
submission that the information charges no indictable offense ... can be fully
ventilated." Respondent court held no hearing whatsoever on this issue,
disregarding petitioners' prayer that it reset the issue for the required hearing,
should it resolve adversely, as it did, the first issue of whether there had been
due preliminary investigation.
Should respondent fiscal, after such preliminary investigation, find sufficient

evidence to establish prima facie the guilt of the accused and therefore maintain
the information for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 as filed and so inform the
lower court, then the trial court must hold a hearing on the validity of the
information and make an affirmative finding of validity thereof, before it can
issue the order of suspension from office of petitioner Luciano.
This procedure was first indicated in the leading case of Luciano vs. Prov.
Governor, supra, where we stated that "in line with the statutory text of Section
13, the suspension spoken of follows the pendency in court of a criminal
prosecution under a "valid information". Adherence to this rigoristic requirement
funnels us down to no other conclusion than that there must, first of all, be a
determination that the information filed is valid before suspension can be
effected. This circumstance militates strongly against the notion that suspension
is automatic. Suspension is however, mandatory." In the subsequent case
of Luciano vs. Wilson, supra, the Court, in requiring such pre-suspension
hearing, held definitely that "a hearing on the validity of the information appears
conformable to the spirit of the law, taking into account the serious and far
reaching consequences of a suspension of an elected public official, even before
his conviction and that public interest demands a speedy determination of the
issues involved in (the) case.

Luciano vs. Marciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luciano vs. Marciano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luciano vs. Marciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebosa, Dante E.

G.R. No. L-32950 July 30, 1971

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a proper conduct of Preliminary

At the reinvestigation conducted, the accused instead of presenting evidence in their

The petitioner claimed that no preliminary investigation was conducted in

2. TOPIC: INFORMATION (VALIDITY)

ISSUE: Whether or not the Information filed was valid.

Respondent court evidently failed to appreciate the full import of this

Should respondent fiscal, after such preliminary investigation, find sufficient

You might also like