People Of The Philippines v. Beriales

CONCEPCION JR., J.:

têñ.£îhqw⣠The Court's attention has been called to the fact that the decision in this case has been interpreted in prosecution circles in such manner as may cause the obstruction of the administration of justice. Hence, a clarification and a restatement of some of the principles therein involved are in order. In this case, which involved a prosecution in the Court of First Instance, the Court ruled,inter alia, that the fiscal's duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings; and that evidence presented by the private prosecutor at a hearing, at which neither the fiscal nor his assistant or duly authorized special counsel was officially present, cannot be considered as evidence for the People of the Philippines.

This pronouncement, as can be clearly deduced therefrom, applies to the trial and prosecution of criminal cases before the Courts of First Instance, Criminal Circuit Courts, and City Courts (which are provided by law with their own City Fiscals) only, and not to the municipal courts. The procedure in the trial of criminal cases before the municipal courts and City Courts which do not have their own City Fiscals has not in any way been altered or modified by the pronouncement in this case.ℒαwρhi৷ Under Sec. 2, Rule 1101 of the Revised Rules of Court, and in the light of the ruling in the cases of P.P.I. vs. Alvarez and P.P.I. vs. Perez, et al., 2 police, constabulary, and other peace or law enforcement officers and private prosecutors may prosecute criminal cases in the said courts, but this authority ceases upon actual intervention of the provincial or City Fiscal or their assistants, or upon the elevation of the case to the Court of First Instance.

Fernando (Chairman) and Antonio, JJ., concur.