Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-7899 June 23, 1955 ALFREDO MONTEL !ANO, PASTOR MALLORCA, GON"ALGO DE LA TORRE, #n$ JOSE ART CULO, petitioners-appellants, vs. T%E %ONORA!LE FEL & S. FERRER, #' Ju$(e o) *+e Mun,-,.#/ Cou0* o) !#-o/o$, #n$ JOSE F. !ENARES, respondents-appellees. Arrieta and Nolan for appellants. Parreo and Banzon for appellees. CONCEPC ON, J.1 The question involved in this case is one purel of la!. "n #une $%, $&'%, respondent #ose (. Benares filed, !ith the Municipal Court of the Cit of Bacolod, a cri)inal co)plaint, !hich !as doc*eted as Case No. +,-. of said court, a/ainst petitioners herein, Alfredo Montelibano, Pastor Mallorca, 0on1al/o de la Torre and #ose Articulo, char/in/ the) !ith the cri)e of )alicious )ischief. 2t is alle/ed in said co)plaint3 That on or about the 'th, the 4th and the ,th of #une, $&'%, in the Cit of Bacolod, Philippines, and !ithin the 5urisdiction of this court, Alfredo Montelibano, as author b induce)ent, Pastor Mallorca, 0on1alo de la Torre and #ose Articulo, as authors b direct participations, conspirin/ and confederatin/ to/ether and helpin/ one another, did then and there, !illfull , unla!full and deliberatel cause da)a/e to the su/arcane plantation belon/in/ to #ose (. Benares, the offended part herein, intentionall and usin/ bulldo1er and destro in/ co)pletel ei/hteen 6$,7 hectares of su/arcanes obviousl under the i)pulse of hatred and a desire for reven/e, as the accused, Alfredo Montelibano, failed in his atte)pt to have the herein offended part punished for conte)pt of Court in Civil Case No. $,&- of the Court of (irst 2nstance of Ne/ros "ccidental, thereb causin/ upon said #ose (. Benares da)a/e in the a)ount of )ore than P$%,888.88. 9pon the filin/ of this co)plaint, due course !as /iven thereto b the herein respondent, :on. (eli; <. (errer, Municipal #ud/e of the Cit of Bacolod, !ho, li*e!ise, issued the correspondin/ !arrant of arrest. "n or about #une ++, $&'%, the afore)entioned defendants 6petitioners herein7 filed a )otion to quash said !arrant of arrest, as !ell as the co)plaint, upon several /rounds, !hich )a be reduced to t!o, na)el 3 6$7 The onl officer authori1ed b the Charter of the Cit of Bacolod to initiate cri)inal cases in the courts thereof is its Cit Attorne , !ho is opposed to the institution of said Case No. +,-.= and 6+7 <aid case involves a pre5udicial question. 2n this connection, petitioners alle/ed, and Benares has not denied, the follo!in/3 <o)eti)e in $&.8, the Capitol <ubdivision 2nc. 6hereinafter referred to as the <ubdivision7, of !hich petitioner Alfredo Montelibano is the president and /eneral )ana/er, leased >ot No. $+8'-2-$ 6!hich is the sa)e propert involved in Case No. +,-.7 to Benares, for a period of five 6'7 crop ears, endin/ in the crop- ear $&..-$&.', !ith an option in favor of Benares, of another five 6'7 crop- ears. "n #une ', $&'$, the <ubdivision instituted a/ainst Benares, unla!ful detainer case No. $,&- of the Mun,-,.#/ Cou0* of the

Cit of Bacolod, !hich, in due course, subsequentl , 0en$e0e$ # $e-,',on o0$e0,n( +,' e2e-*3en* )0o3 '#,$ /o*. Benares appealed to the Court of (irst 2nstance of Ne/ros "ccidental 6in !hich it !as doc*eted as Civil Case No. $,&-7. "n )otion of the <ubdivision, this court issued a !rit of preli)inar )andator in5unction, co))andin/ Benares to turn over the afore)entioned lot to the <ubdivision, !hich filed a bond underta*in/ to pa to Benares ?all da)a/es !hich he )a sustain? b reason of the issuance of said !rit, ?if the court should finall decide that the plaintiff !as not entitled thereto.? 2nas)uch as Benares continued plantin/ on >ot No. $+8'->-$, instead of deliverin/ it to the <ubdivision, the latter filed a petition pra in/ that the for)er be declared in conte)pt of court. This .e*,*,on 4#' $en,e$, b an order dated April %8, $&'%, 4+,-+ +o4e5e0, 0e6u,0e$ !en#0e' *o 7,33e$,#*e/8 #n$ .0o3.*/8 o9e8 *+e o0$e0 o) .0e/,3,n#08 3#n$#*o08 ,n2un-*,on .? "n #une ', $&'% the provincial sheriff delivered the land in question to the <ubdivision. <ee)in/l , actin/ upon instructions of petitioner Montelibano, his co-petitioners thereupon cleared the land of the su/arcane planted therein b Benares. :ence, the cri)inal co)plaint filed b the latter. The Municipal Court $en,e$ the afore)entioned )otion to quash said co)plaint and the !arrant of arrest, as !ell as a subsequent )otion for reconsideration, !hereupon .e*,*,one0' ,n'*,*u*e$ *+e -#'e #* 9#0, ,n *+e Cou0* o) F,0'* n'*#n-e o) Ne(0o' O--,$en*#/ , !here it !as doc*eted as Civil Case No. +,+,, a/ainst said Municipal #ud/e, and co)plainant Benares, for the purpose of securin/ a !rit of certiorari and mandamus @ ?annullin/ and vacatin/ all the proceedin/s so far ta*en b respondent #ud/e in said Case no. +,-.? and ?holdin/ that said #ud/e had no 5urisdiction to ta*e co/ni1ance of the sa)e? and ?dis)issin/ said case? @ !ith a !rit of preli)inar in5unction, en5oinin/ respondent 5ud/e ?to desist fro) further proceedin/s in the case.? The !rit of preli)inar in5unction !as issued b said court of first instance, !hich, in due course, eventuall rendered a decision, $,'3,'',n( *+e .e*,*,on for certiorari and mandamus, and dissolvin/ the !rit of preli)inar in5unction, !ith costs a/ainst the petitioners. T+e -#'e ,' no4 9e)o0e u' on #..e#/ ta*en, fro) said decision, b the afore)entioned petitioners, the defendants in said cri)inal case. 2t is not disputed that the co)plaint in question !as filed b Benares directl !ith the )unicipal court of Bacolod, and that the Cit Attorne had, not onl no intervention !hatsoever therein, but, also, e;pressed, in open court, his opposition thereto. The ,''ue boils do!n to !hether said )unicipal court )a entertain said co)plaint. Petitioners contend that it )a not, rel in/ upon 'e-*,on 22 o) Co33on4e#/*+ A-* No. 32:, other!ise *no!n #' *+e C+#0*e0 o) *+e C,*8 o) !#-o/o$ , the pertinent part of !hich provides3 . . . T+e C,*8 #**o0ne8 . . . shall also have char/e of the prosecution of all cri)es, )isde)eanors, and violations of cit ordinances, in the Court of (irst 2nstance and the Municipal Court of the cit , and shall dischar/e all the duties in respect to cri)inal prosecutions en5oined b la! upon provincial fiscals. The cit attorne shall cause to be investi/ated all char/es of cri)es, )isde)eanors, and violation of ordinances, and have the necessar infor)ations or co)plaints prepared or )ade a/ainst the persons accused. . . .. 9pon the other hand, respondents ar/ue that this provision is )erel declarator of the po!ers of the Cit Attorne of Bacolod and does not preclude the application of <ec. + of Rule $8- of the Rules of Court readin/3 Co)plaint is a s!orn !ritten state)ent char/in/ a person !ith an offense, subscribed b the offended part , an peace officer or other e)plo ees of the /overn)ent or /overn)ental institution in char/e of the enforce)ent or e;ecution of the la! violated.

This !as the ver sa)e provision invo*ed b the petitioner in the case of Espiritu vs. Dela Rosa 6.' "ff. 0a1. $&-7, in !hich this Court refused to issue a !rit of mandamus to co)pel the Court of (irst 2nstance of Manila to accept a co)plaint filed, directl !ith said court, b the offended part in a /iven case, !ithout the intervention of the Cit (iscal of Manila. 2n his concurrin/ opinion therein, then Chief #ustice Moran had the follo!in/ to sa 3 2 concur upon the /round that Rule $8, section . does not appl in the Cit of Manila !here the only officer authorized by law to conduct preliminary investi ation is the !ity "iscal 6sec. +.4., Ad). Code7 and therefore, all criminal complaints should be filed with that officer !ho in turn )a , after investi/ation, file the correspondin/ infor)ation !ith the Court of (irst 2nstance. The provisions of the Ad)inistrative Code on this )atter have not been repealed b the Rules of Court. 6:ashi) vs. Boncan, .8 "ff. 0a1., p. $%.7 6E)phasis supplied.7 As indicated in said decision, the sa)e !as based, partl , upon the rule laid do!n in :ashi) vs. Boncan 64$ Phil. +$-7, !hich, in turn, !as predicated upon earlier precedents 69. <. vs. Ailson, . Phil. %$4= 9. <. vs. Mc0overn, - Phil. -+$= 9. <. vs. "ca)po, $, Phil. $= 9. <. vs. 0rant and Benned , $, Phil. $++= 9. <. vs. Carlos, +$ Phil. ''%7. 2n case of <a o vs. Chief of Police 6.' "ff. 0a1. .,4'7 the lan/ua/e used b this Court !as3 9nder the la!, a co)plaint char/in/ a person !ith the co))ission of an offense co/ni1able b the courts of Manila is no* ),/e$ 4,*+ *+e 3un,-,.#/ -ou0* o) F,0'* n'*#n-e o) M#n,/#, because as above stated, the latter do not )a*e or conduct a preli)inar investi/ation proper. The co)plaint 3u'* 9e 3#$e o0 ),/e$ 4,*+ *+e -,*8 ),'-#/ o) M#n,/# !ho, personall or throu/h one of his assistance, )a*es the investi/ation, not for the purpose of orderin/ the arrest of the accused, but of filin/ !ith the proper court the necessar infor)ation a/ainst the accused if the result of the investi/ation so !arrants, and obtainin/ fro) the court a !arrant of arrest or co))it)ent of the accused. ;;;;;;;;; 2n the Cit of Manila, where complaints are not filed directly with the municipal court or the !ourt of "irst #nstance$ the officer or person )a*in/ the arrest !ithout !arrant shall surrender or ta*e the person arrested to the cit fiscal, and the latter shall )a*e the investi/ation above)entioned and file, if proper, the correspondin/ infor)ation !ithout the ti)e prescribed b section $+' of the Revised Penal Code, so that the court )a issue a !arrant of co))it)ent for the te)porar detention of the accused. . . .. 6E)phasis supplied.7 2t is clear, therefore, that, in the Cit of Manila, cri)inal co)plaints )a be filed onl !ith the Cit (iscal, !ho is thereb /iven, b i)plication, the e;clusive authorit to institute cri)inal cases in the different courts of said cit , under the provisions of its Charter, ori/inall found in <ection %& of Act the pertinent part of !hich !e quote3 . . . The prosecutin/ attorne of the cit of Manila shall have char/e of the prosecution of all cri)es, )isde)eanors, and violations of cit ordinances, in the Court of (irst 2nstance and the )unicipal courts of the cit of Manila. :e shall investi/ate all char/es of cri)es, )isde)eanors, and violations of ordinances, and prepare the necessar infor)ations or )a*e the necessar co)plaints a/ainst the persons accused, and dischar/e all other duties in respect to cri)inal prosecutions en5oined upon provincial fiscals . . .. This provision !as mutatis mutandis reproduced, firstl , in section +.%4 of the "ld Ad)inistrative

Code 6Act No. +-'47, then in section +.-' of the Revised Ad)inistrative Code, and lastl in section %, of Republic Act no. .8&. Ae do not see, and respondents herein have not pointed out, an reason !h the above quoted provision of the Charter of the Cit of Bacolod, should be interpreted differentl fro) said sections of the Charter of the Cit of Manila, !hich are substantiall identical thereto. "n the contrar , considerin/ that said provisions of the Charter of the Cit of Manila had been consistentl construed in the )anner above indicated, before bein/ incorporated in the Charter of the Cit of Bacolod, the conclusion is inevitable that the fra)ers of the latter had reproduced the for)er !ith intent of adoptin/, also its settled interpretation b the 5udicial depart)ent 6#n re Cic*, %, Phil. .$, 447. 2n the interpretation of reenacted statutes the court !ill follo! the construction !hich the received !hen previousl in force. The le/islature !ill be presu)ed to *no! the effect !hich such status ori/inall had, and b reenact)ent to intend that the should a/ain +#5e *+e '#3e e))e-*. . . . 2t is not necessar that a statute should be reenacted in identical !ords in order that the rule )a appl . 2t is sufficient if it is reenacted in substantiall the sa)e !ords. . . . The rule has been held to appl to the reenact)ent of a statute !hich received a practical construction on the part of those !ho are called upon to e;ecute it. The <upre)e Court of Nebras*a sa s 3 ?Ahere the le/islature in fra)in/ an act resorts to lan/ua/e si)ilar in its i)port to the lan/ua/e of other acts !hich have received a practical construction b the e;ecutive depart)ents and b the le/islature itself, it is fair to presu)e that the lan/ua/e !as used in the later act !ith a vie! to the construction so /iven the earlier.? . . . 6<utherland <tatutor Construction, Dol. 22, +d. ed., section .8% . . . t!o statutes !ith a parallel scope, purpose and ter)inolo/ should, each in its o!n field, have a li*e interpretation, unless in particular instances there is so)ethin/ peculiar in the question under consideration, or dissi)ilar in the ter)s of the act relatin/ thereto, requirin/ a different conclusion. 6'8 A). #ur. %.%7 . . . <ince it )a be presu)ed that the le/islature *ne! a construction, lon/ acquieced in, !hich had been /iven b the courts to a statute re-enacted b the le/islature, there is a presu)ption of an intention to adopt the construction as !ell as the lan/ua/e of the prior enact)ent. * ,' #--o0$,n(/8 # 'e**/e$ 0u/e o) '*#*u*o08 -on'*0u-*,on *+#* 4+en # '*#*u*e o0 # -/#u'e o0 .0o5,',on *+e0eo) +#' 9een -on'*0ue$ 98 # -ou0* o) /#'* 0e'o0*, #n$ *+e '#3e ,' 'u9'*#n*,#//8 0e-en#-*e$, *+e /e(,'/#*u0e 3#8 9e 0e(#0$e$ #' #$o.*,n( 'u-+ -on'*0u-*,on. 6'8 A). #ur. .-$7 2n vie! of the fore/oin/, the decision appealed fro) )ust be, as it is hereb , 0e5e0'e$ and another one shall be entered #nnu//,n( *+e 4#00#n* o) #00e'* ,''ue$ 98 0e'.on$en* Ju$(e and en5oinin/ the latter to refrain fro) entertainin/ the co)plaint afore)entioned and to dis)iss the sa)e. Aith cost a/ainst respondent #ose (. Benares. 2t is so ordered. Ben zon$ Padilla$ %ontemayor$ Reyes$ A.$ &u o$ Bautista An elo$ 'abrador and Reyes$ &. B. '.$ &&.$ concur.

D GEST1

Mon*e/,9#no 5. Fe00e0
F#-*'1 2n $&.8, the <ubdivision 2nc, of !hich Montelibano is the president and /eneral )ana/er, leased a lot to Benares for five ears, !ith an option in favor of Benares of another five crop ears. "n $&'$, the <ubdivision instituted a/ainst Benares an unla!ful detainer case !hich rendered a decision orderin/ hi) to e5ect fro) the said lot. :o!ever, Benares continued plantin/ on the said lot, instead of deliverin/ it to <ubdivision. <heriff, Actin/ upon Montelibano, his co-petitioners cleared the land of su/arcane planted b Benares. :ence, a cri)inal case !as filed b Benares a/ainst petitiioners. A !arrant of arrest !as then filed to the petitioners. Monteibano and his co)panions filed a )otion to quash the co)plaint and !arrant of arrest A civil case a/ainst Municipal #ud/e and Benares !as filed alle/in/ that the said 5ud/e had no 5urisdiction to ta*e co/ni1ance of the cri)inal case. ''ue1 Ahether or not the )unicipal court )a entertain the cri)inal case rel in/ upon CA %+-, section ++ 6Charter of the Cit of Bacolod7 !hich provides that the Cit Attorne shall char/e of the prosecution of all cri)es, )isde)eanors, and violations of cit ordinances, in the Court of (irst 2nstance and the Municipal Court of Bacolod. %e/$1 No, the #ud/e of Municipal Court has no 5urisdiction over the case. 2n the interpretation of reenacted statutes the court !ill follo! the construction !hich the received !hen previousl in force. The le/islature !ill be presu)ed to *no! the effect !hich such status ori/inall had, and b reenact)ent to intend that the should a/ain have the sa)e effect. T!o statutes !ith a parallel scope, purpose and ter)inolo/ should, each in its o!n field, have a li*e interpretation, unless in particular instances there is so)ethin/ peculiar in the question under consideration, or dissi)ilar in the ter)s of the act relatin/ thereto, requirin/ a different conclusion. 2n the case at bar, the sa)e provisions !ere contested in <a o v. Chief of Police !herein it !as held that in the Cit of Manila, cri)inal co)plaints )a be filed onl !ith the Cit (iscal !ho is /iven the e;clusive authorit to institute cri)inal cases in the different courts of said cit , under the provisions of its Charter found in <ec %& of Act E $,%. The provisions of the Charter of Cit of Bacolod !hich are substantiall identical to that of Manila should then be interpreted the sa)e. Therefore, the decision appealed is reversed and the !arrant of arrest issued b the 5ud/e shall be annulled.