Hernandez vs. Albano

A sworn written complaint under Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court is required only for the complaint filed in court after preliminary investigation, not for the initial charge that triggers the fiscal's investigation; the city fiscal may investigate criminal charges even if the initial denunciation is unsworn.

Petitioner Jaime Hernandez was a public official whose financial interests in several corporations—including the Bicol Electric Co., University of Nueva Caceres, University of the East, DMG Corporation, and the Rural Bank of Nueva Caceres—were denounced by Congressman Delfin Albano. The respondents are the city fiscal of Manila and his assistants, who were tasked with investigating the resulting charges. The legal framework at issue includes Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, which defines "complaint" as a sworn written statement subscribed by the offended party or specified government officers, and Sections 38-B and 38-C of the Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act No. 409) and Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code, which govern the fiscal's authority to conduct preliminary investigations.

Sometime in March 1959, Congressman Delfin Albano sent to the city fiscal of Manila two unsworn letters dated March 6 and March 23, 1959, denouncing petitioner Jaime Hernandez's interest in several entities: the Bicol Electric Co., University of Nueva Caceres, University of the East, DMG Corporation, and the Rural Bank of Nueva Caceres. These letters gave rise to the docketing in the office of the city fiscal of five separate cases charging petitioner with violations of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code, Commonwealth Act No. 626, and Republic Act No. 265.

The five charges were assigned by the city fiscal to two of his assistants for preliminary investigation. At the initial hearing, petitioner moved for dismissal on the ground that Congressman Albano was not among those competent to subscribe to a complaint under Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. The motion was denied, as were two subsequent motions for reconsideration.

On April 25, 1959, petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the respondents, seeking to prevent them from conducting the preliminary investigation on the ground that the charges filed by Congressman Albano were unsworn and therefore did not comply with Section 2, Rule 106. Respondents manifested that they would suspend the scheduled preliminary investigation pending determination of the petition. After due hearing, the trial court, through Judge Jose Y. Perez, upheld the authority of the respondents to conduct the investigation even without a sworn complaint and dismissed the petition. The appeal taken by petitioner was certified by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

• Requirement of Sworn Complaint: Petitioner argued that all complaints filed with the Office of the City Fiscal must conform to the definition of "complaint" under Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sworn written statement subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other government employee in charge of law enforcement. Since Congressman Albano did not swear to the charges, petitioner maintained that the respondents were acting in excess of their authority in conducting the preliminary investigation.
• Meaning of "Complaint": Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in ruling that the complaint contemplated in Section 2, Rule 106 is the one filed in court after preliminary investigation, arguing instead that the sworn complaint requirement applies to charges filed with the fiscal's office to initiate investigation. In support, petitioner cited the pronouncement in Espiritu vs. De La Rosa that a complaint need not necessarily be filed with a court of justice and may be laid before the City Fiscal for investigation.

• Requirement of Sworn Complaint: Whether the unsworn letters of denunciation sent by Congressman Albano to the city fiscal needed to conform to the sworn complaint requirement of Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court in order to validly initiate preliminary investigation.
• Meaning of "Complaint" under Rule 106: Whether the "complaint" contemplated in Section 2, Rule 106 refers to the charge filed in court after preliminary investigation or to the initial charge filed with the fiscal's office to commence investigation.

• Requirement of Sworn Complaint: No. The city fiscal and his assistants are vested with authority to investigate all charges of crimes irrespective of whether the complainant is the offended party, and a sworn written complaint is not necessary to initiate investigation, except for private offenses or those requiring initiation by specified public officers.
• Meaning of "Complaint" under Rule 106: The "complaint" in Section 2, Rule 106 refers to the sworn written statement filed in court after preliminary investigation, not the initial charge that commences the investigation before the fiscal.

• Requirement of Sworn Complaint: Sections 38-B and 38-C of the Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act No. 409) and Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code vest the city fiscal and his assistants with authority to investigate all charges of crimes and violations of ordinances irrespective of whether the complainant is the offended party. These provisions do not require a sworn written complaint to be filed before the fiscal may investigate, except for (1) offenses that cannot be prosecuted de oficio or are private in nature, where the law requires initiation by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, and (2) cases requiring enforcement by specified public officers under Section 2, Rule 106. The charges in this case—violations of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code, Commonwealth Act No. 626, and Republic Act No. 265—did not fall within either exception. The Court noted that it had always been the practice in the City of Manila to investigate charges without a prior sworn complaint, a practice endorsed in prior decisions including U.S. vs. Barretto and Hashim vs. Boncan, where the Court reaffirmed that the Rules of Court did not intend to dismantle this established institution of criminal justice administration.

• Meaning of "Complaint" under Rule 106: Section 38-C of the Revised Charter of Manila provides that "no complaint or information shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation," clearly showing that preliminary investigation precedes the filing of the complaint. The complaint referred to in Section 2, Rule 106 is therefore the one prepared after preliminary investigation and filed in court. This interpretation was reinforced by People vs. Santos, where the Court, construing a substantially identical provision in Republic Act No. 732, held that the complaint mentioned therein "is precisely what is defined and mentioned in the Rules of Court and the Penal Code"—i.e., the complaint filed in court after preliminary investigation. The trial court's opinion, quoted with approval by the Supreme Court, clarified that Espiritu vs. De La Rosa is authority only for the proposition that a sworn charge filed with the fiscal is deemed a complaint, not that all charges filed with the fiscal must conform to the sworn complaint requirement. Since Congressman Albano's unsworn letters were not filed in court and were not the product of preliminary investigation but rather initiated it, they need not conform to the definition of complaint in Section 2, Rule 106.

• Authority of the Fiscal to Investigate Without a Sworn Complaint — The city fiscal and his assistants, like provincial fiscals, are vested with authority to investigate all charges of crimes and violations of ordinances irrespective of whether the complainant is the offended party. A sworn written complaint is not necessary to be filed before the fiscal can commence preliminary investigation, except for two categories: (1) private offenses that must be initiated by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, and (2) cases requiring enforcement by specified public officers under Section 2, Rule 106. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the charges against petitioner—public offenses prosecutable de oficio—fell within neither exception, and therefore Congressman Albano's unsworn denunciation letters were sufficient to trigger the fiscal's investigative authority.

• Nature of "Complaint" under Section 2, Rule 106 — The "complaint" contemplated in Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court is the sworn written statement filed in court after preliminary investigation, not the initial charge that commences the investigation before the fiscal. The sequence is established by Section 38-C of the Revised Charter of Manila, which provides that "no complaint or information shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation," demonstrating that preliminary investigation precedes the complaint. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Congressman Albano's unsworn letters, which started rather than resulted from the preliminary investigation, were not "complaints" within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 106 and therefore need not have been sworn.

• "Said provisions do not require that a sworn written complaint be first filed before the city fiscal in order that he may investigate the case complained of, except of course if the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio, or is private in nature, where the law requires that it be started by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, or when it pertains to those cases which need to be enforced by specified public officers as required in Section 2, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court." — This passage states the controlling rule distinguishing offenses requiring a sworn complaint from those that may be investigated upon unsworn denunciation.

• "The complaint contemplated in Section 2 of Rule 106 is hence the one filed in court because it is the one prepared after the preliminary investigation is held under Republic Act No. 732." — Drawn from the trial court's opinion quoted with approval by the Supreme Court, this passage defines the temporal and functional character of the "complaint" under Rule 106 as a post-investigation court filing.

• "Since the above provision of law clearly shows that the preliminary investigation precedes the filing of the complaint which is what is defined and mentioned in the Rules of Court, the charge filed by respondent Congressman Albano which was not the result of the preliminary investigation but started it need not conform to the definition of complaint in the Rules of Court." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: because preliminary investigation precedes the complaint, the initial charge that triggers investigation is not governed by the sworn complaint requirement.

• U.S. vs. Barretto, 36 Phil. 204 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that public prosecution officers have authority to institute and maintain criminal actions without regard to the intervention of private persons, except for offenses that can only be instituted at the instance of the offended party.

• Hashim vs. Boncan, et al., 71 Phil. 216 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the fiscal's power to investigate charges without a prior sworn complaint is reaffirmed—not taken away—by the Rules of Court, and that the framers of the Rules did not intend to dismantle this established institution of criminal justice administration.

• Espiritu vs. De La Rosa, 78 Phil. 827 — Clarified. Cited by petitioner for the proposition that a complaint under Section 2, Rule 106 need not be filed with a court of justice. The Court, quoting the trial court's opinion with approval, clarified that this case is authority only for the proposition that a sworn charge filed with the fiscal is deemed a complaint, not that all charges filed with the fiscal must conform to the sworn complaint requirement.

• People vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. L-8520, June 20, 1957 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the complaint mentioned in Republic Act No. 732 (substantially identical to the Manila Charter provision) "is precisely what is defined and mentioned in the Rules of Court and the Penal Code," and that this complaint is the one filed in court after preliminary investigation.

• Section 2, Rule 106, Rules of Court — Defines "complaint" as a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other government employee in charge of law enforcement. The Court held this provision applies to the complaint filed in court after preliminary investigation, not to the initial charge that starts the investigation.

• Section 38-B, Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) — Provides that the City Fiscal shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes and violations of ordinances and have the necessary informations or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused, and shall discharge all duties in respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. The Court relied on this provision to establish the fiscal's authority to investigate without a prior sworn complaint.

• Section 38-C, Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) — Provides that in cases cognizable by the CFI, no complaint or information shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation. The Court used this provision to demonstrate that preliminary investigation precedes the filing of the complaint, thereby establishing that the complaint under Rule 106 is a post-investigation filing.

• Section 1687, Revised Administrative Code — Grants provincial fiscals authority to conduct investigation into any crime or misdemeanor and have the necessary information or complaint prepared. The Court cited this as analogous to and supportive of the city fiscal's power under the Manila Charter.

• Republic Act No. 732 — Contains a provision substantially identical to Section 38-B of the Manila Charter regarding the fiscal's authority to conduct preliminary investigation. Cited in People vs. Santos for the proposition that the complaint mentioned therein is the one defined in the Rules of Court, filed after preliminary investigation.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concurred. Barrera, J., took no part.