Gregorio Honasan II petitioner vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice G.R.No. 159! "pril 1#$%&&!
Lesson Lessonss Applica pplicable ble:: Rule Rule on Interp Interpret retati ative ve Regula Regulatio tions ns (perso (persons ns), ), Powers Powers of the the Ombudsman (consti), concurrent urisdiction of the Ombudsman and the !O" to conduct preliminar# investigation investigation (consti) Law Applicable: Applicable: $ection %&, Article 'I of the onstitution, "rt. % 'ivil 'o(e
•
o
o
o
•
o
o
•
acts: August *, +&: I!-.P/P0P I!-.P/P0P !irector !irector 1dguardo 2atillano filed an affidavit.complaint affidavit.complaint with the !epartment of "ustice (!O") which contains the following in part: "ul# +3, +&: crime of coup d4 etat was committed committed b# militar# personnel who occupied occupied Oa5wood and $enator -regorio 6-ringo7 8onasan, II On or about %% p9m9 "une *,+&: A meeting was held and presided b# $enator 8onasan in a house located in $an "uan, 2etro 2anila 1arl# morning of "ul# +3, +&: apt9 -erardo -ambala, in behalf of the militar# rebels occup#ing Oa5wood, made a public statement aired on national television, stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AP and the -overnment of President -loria 2acapagal Arro#o9 illing to ris5 their lives to achieve the /ational Recover# Agenda Agenda (/RA) of $enator 8onasan which the# believe is the onl# program that would solve the ills of societ#9 $worn statement of AP 2aor Perfecto Ragil stated that: "une *, +& about %% pm: $enator -regorio 6-ringo7 8onasan arrived with apt9 ;uringa ;uringa to hold the /RP meeting where the# concluded the use of force, violence and armed struggle to achieve the vision of /RP where a unta will be constituted which will run the new government9 ;he# had a blood compact and that he onl# participated due to the threat made b# $enator 8onasan when he said 6I> on the arm bands and the banner is the same letter >I> in the banner is the same as their blood compact wound9 August +3, +&: $enator 8onasan appeared with counsel at the !O" to file a a 2otion for larification ?uestioning !O"@s urisdiction over the case since the imputed acts were committe committed d in relation relation to his public office office b# a group of public official officialss with $alar# -rad -radee &% whic which h shou should ld be hand handle led d b# the the Offi Office ce of the the Ombu Ombuds dsma man n and and the the $andiganba#an
•
$enator 8onasan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule B of the Rules of ourt against the !O" Panel and its members, I!-.P/P.P0!irector 1duardo 2atillano and Ombudsman $imeon =9 2arcelo, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the !O" Panel in issuing the afore?uoted Order of $eptember %, +& directing him to file his respective counter.affidavits and controverting evidence on the ground that the !O" has no urisdiction to conduct the preliminar# investigation Issues: %9 hether in regards to Ombudsman.!O" ircular no9 CB.%, the office of the Ombudsman should deputiDe the prosecutors of the !O" to conduct the preliminar# investigation9 +9 hether the Ombudsman.!O" "oint ircular no9 CB.% is ineffective on the ground that it was not published &9 hether the Ombudsman has urisdiction to conduct the preliminar# investigation because the petitioner is a public officer with salar# grade &% (-rade +3 or 8igher) thereb# falling within the urisdiction of the $andigan Ea#an9
8eld: herefore, the petition for certiorari is !I$2I$$1! for lac5 of merit %9 /o9 •
Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses ma# be subdivided into two classes, to wit: (%) those cogniDable b# the $andiganba#an, and (+) those falling under the urisdiction of the regular courts9 ;he difference between the two, aside from the categor# of the courts wherein the# are filed, is on the authorit# to investigate as distinguished from the authorit# to prosecute
•
;he power to investigate or conduct a preliminar# investigation on an# Ombudsman case ma# be eFercised b# an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or b# an# Provincial or it# Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as deputiDed Ombudsman prosecutors9
•
circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is ust an internal agreement between the Ombudsman and the !O"
•
;he onstitution, ;he Ombudsman Act of %CGC, Administrative order no9 G of the office of the Ombudsman9 ;he prevailing urisprudence and under the Revised Rules on riminal Procedure, All recogniDe and uphold the concurrent urisdiction
of the Ombudsman and the !O" to conduct preliminar# investigation on charges filed against public officers and emplo#ees9 •
;he !O" Panel need not be authoriDed nor deputiDed b# the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminar# investigation for complaints filed with it because the !O"@s authorit# to act as the principal law agenc# of the government and investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal ode is derived from the Revised Administrative ode which had been held in the /atividad case%& as not being contrar# to the onstitution9 ;hus, there is not even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminar# investigation to an agenc# which has the urisdiction to do so in the first place9 8owever, the Ombudsman ma# assert its primar# urisdiction at an# stage of the investigation9
+9 /o9 In the case of People vs9 Hue Po La#, C* Phil9 * (%CB*)9 ;he onl# circulars and regulations which prescribe a penalt# for its violation should be published before becoming effective9 In the case of ;aada =9 ;uvera, %* $cra *B& (%CG), ;he 8onorable ourt rules that: o Interpretative regulations and those merel# internal in nature, that is regulating onl# the personnel of the administrative agenc# and not the public, need not be published9 /either is publication re?uired of the so called letters of instructions issued b# the administrative superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be followed b# their subordinates in performance of their duties9 •
•
•
O2E.!O" "oint irculars no9 CB.% is merel# an internal circular between the !O" and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authorit# and responsibilities among prosecutors of the !O" and of the office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminar# investigation9 It does not regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in general9
&9 /o9 hether or not the offense is within eFclusive urisdiction or not will not resolve the present petition so as not to pre.empt the result of the investigation conducted b# the !O" Panel9
