Who may conduct Preliminary Investigations Meanwhile DOJ dismissed all the complaints of

8. Baviera v Paglinawan Petitioner. While the CA dismissed petitioners

Siplon petition and sustained the ruling of the DOJ that
the case should have been filed initially with the
Facts: Manuel Baviera, complainant, former SEC. Hence this petition for certiorari.
head of the HR Service Delivery and Industrial
Issue: Who may conduct Preliminary
Relations of Standard Chartered Bank-
Investigations?
Philippines (SCB). SCB, a foreign banking
corporation duly licensed to engage in banking,
Ruling: The Court of Appeals held that under the
trust, and other fiduciary business in the
provision, a criminal complaint for violation of
Philippines, did not comply with the conditions
any law or rule administered by the SEC must
in conducting business within this jurisdiction.
first be filed with the latter. If the Commission
Instead, as early as 1996, it acted as a stock
finds that there is probable cause, then it should
broker, soliciting from local residents foreign
refer the case to the DOJ. Since petitioner failed
securities called GLOBAL THIRD PARTY MUTUAL
to comply with the foregoing procedural
FUNDS (GTPMF), denominated in US dollars.
requirement, the DOJ did not gravely abuse its
These securities were not registered with the
discretion in dismissing his complaint in I.S. No.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
2004-229.
These were then remitted outwardly to SCB-
Hong Kong and SCB-Singapore.
A criminal charge for violation of the Securities
SCBs counsel, advised the bank to proceed with Regulation Code is a specialized dispute. Hence,
the selling of the foreign securities although it must first be referred to an administrative
unregistered with the SEC, under the guise of a agency of special competence, i.e., the SEC.
custodianship agreement; and should it be Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
questioned, it shall invoke Section 72 of the courts will not determine a controversy involving
General Banking Act (Republic Act No.337). a question within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal, where the question
On July 18, 1997, the Investment Capital
demands the exercise of sound administrative
Association of the Philippines (ICAP) filed with
discretion requiring the specialized knowledge
the SEC a complaint alleging that SCB violated
and expertise of said administrative tribunal to
the Revised Securities Act, particularly the
determine technical and intricate matters of
provision prohibiting the selling of securities
fact.[12] The Securities Regulation Code is a
without prior registration with the SEC.
special law. Its enforcement is particularly
However, notwithstanding its commitment and vested in the SEC. Hence, all complaints for any
the BSP directive, SCB continued to offer and violation of the Code and its implementing rules
sell GTPMF securities in this country. Upon and regulations should be filed with the SEC.
knowing that SCB was prohibited by the BSP to Where the complaint is criminal in nature, the
sell GPTMF Securities petitioner filed a SEC shall indorse the complaint to the DOJ for
complaint charging SCN officials of syndicated preliminary investigation and prosecution as
Estafa. And was followed with perjury as against provided in Section 53.1 earlier quoted.
respondents.
On December 4, 2003, the SEC issued a Cease
and Desist Order against SCB. Subsequently,
the SEC and SCB reached an amicable
settlement.
Review
16. Tolentino v Pacqueo
Siplon
Facts: Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed
an information charging private respondent
Benedict Tecklo, the owner/proprietor of
Qualistronic Builders, of violation of Sec. 22 (a)
in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of RA 8282 for failing
to remit the premiums due for his employee to
the SSS despite demand. The cases was raffled
by Judge Paqueo, Jr and was set for
arraignment. Counsel for private respondent
moved for the deferment of the arraignment
and requested time to file a motion to quash the
Information, which was granted by court.
Private respondent filed a Motion to quash,
however State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an
opposition to motion to quash. RTC issued
motion to quash and dismissed the case. Pros.
Tolentino filed an objection and motion praying
order to be set aside which was denied.
An examination of the functions of the Regional
State Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of Presidential
Decree No. 127512 showed that they do not
include that of approving the Information filed
or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.
It is a rule of statutory construction that the
express mention of one person, thing, or
consequence implies the exclusion of all others,
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not
included among the law officers authorized to
approve the filing or dismissal of the
Information of the investigating prosecutor, the
Information filed by petitioner State Prosecutor
Tolentino did not comply with the requirement
of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the non-
compliance was a ground to quash the
Information under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Issue: Whether petitioner State Prosecutor

Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject
information without approval of City Prosecutor?

Ruling: No.

While the old 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,

as amended, stated that "[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 of chief state prosecutor," the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that
"[n]o complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor
without the prior written authority or approval
of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy."
Since the provision is couched in negative terms
importing that the act shall not be done
otherwise than designated, it is mandatory.
Review
25. Lanier v People
Siplon
Facts: Facts: The police operatives conducted a
test- buy at petitioners residence in Barangay
Balabag, Boracay Island where they were able
to purchase P5,000.00 worth of shabu and
P1,000.00 worth of marijuana from petitioners.
On the basis of the test-buy operation, they
were able to secure a search warrant from the
RTC of Aklan. A Receipt for Property Seized was
prepared by SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan, but
petitioners refused to sign the same. Thereafter,
petitioners were placed under arrest. The
assistant prosecutor of Kalibo filed an
Information charging the petitioners. The
petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the
Information before the RTC of Kalibo but the
RTC denied the motion and remanded the case
to the provincial prosecutor for preliminary
investigation. The prosecutor upheld the
Information and directed the return of the
records to the RTC for disposition. Petitioners
filed a petition for review before the DOJ. The
Sec. of Justice favored the petitioner on the
belief that the evidences seized were planted.
The secretary, in a Resolution, directed the
prosecutor to withdraw the Information before
the RTC. RTC then granted the Motion to
Withdraw Information by the prosecutor. OSG
filed to the CA a petition for certiorari seeking to
annul the Resolution of the DOJ. The CA found
probable cause to sustain the petitioners
indictment and reinstated the Information
against the petitioners. CA nullified and set
aside the DOJ Resolution and the Order of the
RTC
Issue: Whether the review made by the
Secretary of Justice binding in court?
Ruling: No.
It is wellsettled that courts of law are
precluded from disturbing the findings of public
prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or
nonexistence of probable cause for the
purpose of filing criminal informations, unless
such findings are tainted with grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general
rule rests on the principle of separation of
powers, dictating that the determination of
probable cause for the purpose of indicting a
suspect is properly an executive function; while
the exception hinges on the limiting principle of
checks and balances, whereby the judiciary,
through a special civil action of certiorari, has
been tasked by the present Constitution to
determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
Judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary
of Justice is limited to a determination of
whether there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction considering that full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the executive
branch in the determination of probable cause
during a preliminary investigation. Courts are
not empowered to substitute their judgment for
that of the executive branch; it may, however,
look into the question of whether such exercise
has been made in grave abuse of discretion.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, we must
emphasize that the trial court, having acquired
jurisdiction over the case, is not bound by such
resolution but is required to evaluate it before
proceeding further with the trial. While the
Secretarys ruling is persuasive, it is not binding
on courts.