Guingona, Jr., Martin and Santos V.

City Fiscal of Manila

July 18 1985 | Aquino
Injunction and writs of restraint only in proper cases
TBT
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, an injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution. With more reason
will injunction not lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage.
CASE SUMMARY: The court denied the petition for prohibition/ injunction filed by the petitioners on the ground that
the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage.

FACTS:
- Clement David and his sister Denise Kuhne invested in Nation Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
o Placements made amounted to the total sum of P1,145,546.20.
o He and his sister Denise also had savings deposits in the Nation Savings in the sum of P13,531.94
o They also invested in Nation Savings US$75,000 in 1980 of which $50,000 was deposited in the account
of Teofisto Guingona, Jr. with the Security Bank and Trust Company.
o Aggregate investments of David and Kuhne in Nation Savings amounted to: P1,159,078.14 in local
currency and 75,000 in U.S. dollars.
- At the time the deposits were made, Antonio I. Martin was the president of Nation Savings, Teresita G. Santos
was its general manager, and Guingona was a director.
- Eventually, Nation Savings was placed under receivership due to serious frauds and irregularities committed by
its key officers.
o Guingona and Martin executed a promissory note acknowledging a debt of of P1,336,614.02 and $75,000
to be paid in installments – Guingona acknowledged ½ of the obligation as his debt while Martin assumed
the other ½.
- David received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of the placements made by him and his
sister were entered in the NSLA record. The director of the CB Department of Rural Banks and Savings and Loan
Associations in a report dated June 23, 1981 recommended that the irregularities be brought to the attention of the
CB consultant on criminal cases for appropriate investigation of Nation Savings’ officials
- David then filed with the City Fiscal’s Office in Manila a complaint for estafa and violation of CB Circular No.
364 and related regulations.
o He claimed that the difference between his placements of P1,159,078.14 and $75,000, on one hand, and
the sum of P305,821.92, the amount entered in Nation Savings’ books, on the other hand, constitutes the
defraudation against him. 

o He filed the complaint against Guingona, as board chairman, director and principal stockholder of Nation
Savings; Martin, as vice-president, director and shareholder, and Santos, as general manager.
- Guingona Jr., et al. filed a petition for prohibition against the City Fiscal of Manila because theft obligation is
allegedly civil in character and because of the adverse publicity supposedly instigated by David.

ISSUE: Whether Guingona’s petition for prohibition may prosper against the City Fiscal of Manila? No.

RULING:

- Guingona, Martin and Santos have no cause of action for prohibition because the City Fiscal has jurisdiction to
conduct the preliminary investigation. It has not been finished.
o This case is premature
- As a general rule, an injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution. With more reason will
injunction not lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage.
- This Court will not usurp the primary function of the City Fiscal to conduct the preliminary investigation of the
estafa charge and of the petitioners’ countercharge for perjury, which was consolidated with the estafa charge
o The City Fiscal’s office should be allowed to finish its investigation and make its factual findings. This
Court should not conduct the preliminary investigation. It is not a trier of facts.
o The instant case is primarily a litigation between David and the petitioners. The fact that the Solicitor
General, as counsel of the public respondents, did not file a motion for reconsideration does not estop
David from continuing with the prosecution of the petitioners.
o In the present posture of the case, the City Fiscal occupies the analogous position of judge. He has to
 maintain an attitude of neutrality, not that of partiality.

DISPOSITION:
In view of the foregoing considerations, the decision is reconsidered, the petition is dismissed and the City Fiscal of
Manila is directed to finish the preliminary investigation. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS CITED:

SEC. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal.—If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall
prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he has examined the complainant
and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and
that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five
(5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof,
immediately informing the parties of said action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.

Where the investigating fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city
fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding
information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting
another preliminary investigation.

If upon petition by a proper party, the Minister of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief
state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another
preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information. (5a) (Rule 112 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure).