Evangelista Vs Jarencio

Apiado, Elyn D.
EVANGELISTA vs JARENCIO
G.R. No. L-29274; November 27, 1975
MARTIN, J.:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The President of the Philippines under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966 created
the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO). He charged the
agency with the responsibility to investigate all activities involving or affecting immoral practices,
graft and corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, subversion, and all other activities which are
prejudicial to the government.
The President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigating committee including
the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take
testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.
On June 7, 1968, pursuant to the powers vested in the Agency, petitioner Quirico
Evangelista as Undersecretary of the agency, issued to respondent Fernando Manalastas, then
Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, a subpoena ad testificandum commanding him to be
and appear as witness at the office of the PARGO. Instead of obeying the subpoena, Manalastas
filed a Petition for prohibition and/or injunction with preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order which was granted by the CFI of Manila, hence, this petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge, the
Honorable Hilarion J. Jarencio, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated
July 1, 1968, in Civil Case No. 73305, entitled "Fernando Manalastas v. Sec. Ramon D.
Bagatsing, etc."
ISSUE
Whether or nor the Agency enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact-
finding investigations.
RULING
Yes. An administrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only in
proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to
obtain information upon which future action of a legislative or judicial nature may be taken and
may require the attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature.
Apiado, Elyn D.
Administrative may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or

not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the
issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or
complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough
that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is to
discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon which to make one if the discovered
evidence so justifies. The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not
dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence but can investigate merely on
suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.
The subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is:
1. Within the authority of the agency;
2. The demand is not too indefinite; and
3. The information is reasonably relevant.
The anomalous transaction in question fall within the authority of the Agency, and that the
information sought to be elicited from Manalastas is reasonably relevant to the investigations.
The court is not unmindful that the privilege against self-incrimination extends in
administrative investigations. However, the court finds that in the present case, Manalastas is not
facing any administrative charge. He is merely cited as a witness in connection with the fact-
finding investigation of anomalies and irregularities in the City Government of Manila with the
object of submitting the assembled facts to the President or to file the corresponding charges.
Since, the only purpose of the investigation is to discover facts, any unnecessary extension of the
privilege would thus be unwise.
APPLICABLE LAWS, PRINCIPLES, AND DOCTRINES

Administrative may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or
not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the
issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or
complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough
that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose.

Evangelista Vs Jarencio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evangelista Vs Jarencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apiado, Elyn D.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Administrative may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or

APPLICABLE LAWS, PRINCIPLES, AND DOCTRINES

You might also like