Gregorio
Honasan II petitioner vs.
The
Panel of Investigating Prosecutors
Of
the Department of Justice
G.R.No. 159747 April 13,2004
Lessons Applicable: Rule on Interpretative
Regulations (persons), Powers of the Ombudsman (consti), concurrent
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation (consti)
Law Applicable: Section 13, Article XI of
the Constitution, Art. 2 Civil Code
Facts:
·
August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director
Edguardo Matillano filed an
affidavit-complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following
in part:
o
July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’
etat was committed by military personnel
who occupied Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II
o
On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003:
A meeting was held and presided by Senator Honasan in a house located in San
Juan, Metro Manila
o
Early morning of July 27, 2003:
Capt. Gerardo Gambala, in behalf of the military rebels occupying Oakwood, made
a public statement aired on national television, stating their withdrawal of
support to the chain of command of the AFP and the Government of President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Willing to risk their lives to achieve the National
Recovery Agenda (NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe is the only program
that would solve the ills of society.
·
Sworn statement of AFP Major
Perfecto Ragil stated that:
o
June 4, 2003 about 11 pm: Senator
Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan arrived with Capt. Turinga to hold the NRP meeting
where they concluded the use of force, violence and armed struggle to achieve
the vision of NRP where a junta will be constituted which will run the new
government. They had a blood compact and that he only participated due to the
threat made by Senator Honasan when he said “Kung kaya nating pumatay sa ating
mga kalaban, kaya din nating pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil.”
o
July 27, 2003: He saw on TV
that Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and
some others who were present during the NRP meeting he attended, having a press
conference about their occupation of the Oakwood Hotel. He saw that the letter "I" on the
arm bands and the banner is the same letter "I" in the banner is the
same as their blood compact wound.
·
August 27, 2003: Senator
Honasan appeared with counsel at the DOJ to file a a Motion for Clarification
questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case since the imputed acts were
committed in relation to his public office
by a group of public officials with Salary Grade 31 which should be
handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan
·
Senator Honasan then filed a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel and
its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V.
Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in
issuing the aforequoted Order of September 10, 2003 directing him to file his
respective counter-affidavits and controverting evidence on the ground that the
DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
Issues:
- Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-001, the
office of the Ombudsman should deputize the prosecutors of the DOJ to
conduct the preliminary investigation.
- Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is
ineffective on the ground that it was not published
- Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation because the petitioner is a public officer with
salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby falling within the
jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.
Held: Wherefore, the petition for
certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit
1.
No.
- Ombudsman
cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to
wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling
under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the
two, aside from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on
the authority to investigate as distinguished from the authority to
prosecute
- The power
to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case
may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance,
either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.
- circular
supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is just an internal
agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ
- The
Constitution, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, Administrative order no. 8 of the
office of the Ombudsman. The prevailing jurisprudence and under the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, All recognize and uphold the
concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct
preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and
employees.
- The DOJ
Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to conduct the
preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the DOJ's
authority to act as the principal law agency of the government and
investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code is derived
from the Revised Administrative Code which had been held in the Natividad
case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not even
a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an
agency which has the jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However,
the Ombudsman may assert its primary jurisdiction at any stage of the
investigation.
2.
No.
·
In the case of People vs. Que
Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954). The only circulars and regulations which prescribe
a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective.
·
In the case of Taňada V.
Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986), The Honorable Court rules that:
o
Interpretative regulations and
those merely internal in nature, that is regulating only the personnel of the
administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is
publication required of the so called letters of instructions issued by the
administrative superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be followed by
their subordinates in performance of their duties.
- OMB-DOJ
Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the DOJ
and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and responsibilities
among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the office of the Ombudsman in the
conduct of preliminary investigation. It does not regulate the conduct of persons
or the public, in general.
3.
No. Whether or not the offense
is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not resolve the present petition
so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DOJ
Panel.