HERNANDEZ v ALBANO 25 January 1967 Cruz, ponente appeal of a decision of the Court of First Instance SHORT VERSION: Hernandez

sought to enjoin the fiscals investigation of charges filed against him. The courts only do so in extreme cases; Hernandez did not prove that his belonged to those exceptions. FACTS: Isabela Rep. Delfin Albano (respondent-appellee) filed a complaint with the Manila city fiscal against Finance Secretary & Central Bank Monetary Board Presiding Officer Jaime Hernandez (petitioner-appellant) for violating RPC Art. 216 (possession of prohibited interest by a public officer), Commonwealth Act 626 *which provides for the penalty for violations of Article VII, Section 11, subsection (2) of the Constitution) or RA 265 (Central Bank Act). o The complaint involved Hernandezs alleged shareholdings in University of the East, Bicol Electric Co., Rural Bank of Nueva Caceres, DMG inc., and University of Nueva Caceres and the claim that said corporations obtained dollar allocations from the Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, during Hernandezs incumbency as presiding officer thereof. o In total, there were five charges docketed in the fiscals office. After joint investigation of the charges before Second Assistant City Fiscal of Manila Carlos Gonzales (respondent), Albano moved to exclude the alleged violation of RP Art 216 as the applicability of the statute was pending before the SC in Solidum v Hernandez (it had since been resolved adversely against Hernandez). The fiscal granted the motion. o Hernandez sought the dismissal of the remaining charges on the grounds that (a) violation of Article VII, Section 11, subsection (2) of the Constitution, punishable under Commonwealth Act 626, should be prosecuted at the domicile of the private enterprises affected there by; and that (b) violation of Section 13 of Republic Act 265 is not criminal in nature. Dismissal and reconsideration denied. Hernandez went to the Court of First Instance Manila on certiorari and prohibition praying for preliminary injunction to restrain the fiscals office from continuing the investigation. o The CFI dismissed the petition. ISSUE: could the Manila fiscal be restrained from proceeding with the investigation of the charges against Hernandez? REASONING: By statute, the prosecuting officer of the City of Manila and his assistants are empowered to investigate crimes committed within the city's territorial jurisdiction. Not a mere privilege, it is the sworn duty of a Fiscal to conduct an investigation of a criminal charge filed with his office. The power to investigate postulates the other obligation on the part of the Fiscal to investigate promptly and file the case of as speedily. o A rule was formulated that ordinarily criminal prosecution may not be blocked by court prohibition or injunction. o However, in extreme cases, a relief in equity could be availed of to stop a purported enforcement of a criminal law where it was necessary: (a) for the orderly administration of justice; (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an

oppressive and vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional, or was "held invalid." Commonwealth Act 626 provides the penal sanction for a violation of Constitution Art VII sec. 11(2): a fine of not than P5000 or imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. o The legal mandate in Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of the Court is that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. Where an offense is wholly committed outside the territorial limits wherein the court operates, said court is powerless to try the case. o Similarly, the Manila fiscal could not investigate a crime committed within the exclusive confines of another province. Otherwise, they would be overreaching the territorial limits of their jurisdiction, and unlawfully encroach upon powers and prerogatives of fiscals of the province. o Based on the facts of the case, Possession of prohibited interests is but one of the essential components of the offense. As necessary an ingredient thereof is the fact that petitioner was head of a department: Secretary of Finance. So also, the fact that while head of department and chairman of the Monetary Board he allegedly was financially interested in the corporations aforesaid which so the dollar allocations, and that he had to act officially, in his dual capacity, not in Camarines Sur, but in Manila where he held his office. o Since criminal action must be instituted and tried in the place where the crime or an essential ingredient thereof, took place, it stands to reason to say that the Manila under the facts obtained here, have jurisdiction to investigate the violation complained of. Violation of RA 265 sec. 13 was criminal in nature, as the law clearly provided the penal sanction for violating its provisions.

RULING: CFI judgment affirmed