Title: Ebarle vs. Sucaldito Name of Digester: G.

Sison

G.R. No: 33628 Date: December 29, 1987 Ponente:

Subject / Syllabus Topic: Intrinsic Aids

Petitioner: Bienvenido A. Ebarle et al Respondent: Hon. Judge

Melquiades B. Sucaldito, et al
(Consolidated Cases)
Recit Summary: This is a case about a former governor of Zamboanga (petitioner) seeking injunctive
relief in two separate petitions and to enjoin further proceedings for:
- Prosecutions for violation of provisions in RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);
- And various provisions of the RPC by the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines.
Facts:
 [September 26, 1970] private respondent Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc., filed
two complaints with the respondent City Fiscal for petitioner’s multiple violations of
provisions of RA 3019 as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
 [January 26, 1971] respondent also instituted a prosecution for violation of Articles 182,
183, and 318 of the RPC.
 [February 10, 1971] finally, respondent filed a complaint for a violation of RA 3019 and
Articles 171 and 213 of the RPC.
 [June 16, 1971 and October 8, 1971] Temporary restraining orders were issued directing the
respondents to desist from further proceeding in mentioned cases until further court order.
 Petitioner moved to dismiss, but was denied. He next sought prohibition and mandamus
(Special Case No. 1000), praying for a writ of preliminary injunction at the CFI. CFI granted
the injunctive relief asked for, Anti-Graft League filed a motion to have the TRO lifted and
the petition dismissed.
 [May 14, 1971] Respondent Judge Sucaldito of the CFI dismissed the Special Case 1000.
 [June 11, 1971] Petitioner came to the SC on certiorari with a prayer for a temporary
restraining order.
 Three more criminal complaints were filed for violation of various provisions of the Anti-
Graft Law as well as Article 171 of the RPC. Another followed on [August 23, 1971].
 [September 21, 1971] Petitioner was again charged with further violations of RA 3019.
 Petitioner once again went to the respondent CFI of Zamboanga del Sur, Hon. Asaali Isnani
presiding, on a special civil action (Special Civil Case No. 1048) for prohibition and certiorari
with preliminary injunction. Respondent Anti Graft League moved to have same lifted and
case dismissed.
 Judge Isnani dismissed Special Civil Case 1048 dismissed.
 Petitioner instituted the present case: a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary
injunction. Petitions are consolidated and considered the same submitted for decision.
 Petitioner’s primary argument is that the respondents did not adhere to EO 264:
“OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS CHARGING GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED”

Issue/s: Ruling: The petition was

I. Is EO 264 exclusively applicable to dismissed.
 administrative charges and not criminal - The petitioners reliance
complaints? upon the provisions of
II. Did the respondent Fiscal commit grave abuse EO 264 were found to
of discretion in giving due course to the have no merit.
complaints, notwithstanding the TRO issued? - TROs lifted and set
aside. Costs against the
petitioners.
Ratio:
- The title of EO 264 is of “Commission of Irregularities”. There is NO mention, even by
implication, of criminal offenses/crimes.
- Although crimes are roughly the same as irregularities, the EO could very well have referred
to criminal offenses/crimes specifically if it was the intent of the legislator.
- EO 264 was promulgated under the 1935 Constitution, in which legislative power was vested
exclusively in Congress. Pursuing the petitioner’s arguments (in considering said EO as an
amendment to RA 5180), it would arise in changes in the law on preliminary investigations: a
situation that creates a Constitutional anomaly.