Case Digest: Secretary De Lima vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016

      Rule 112, Preliminary Investigation, Secretary of Justice | Criminal Procedure


Facts:

Dr. Gerardo Ortega, a veterinarian and radio anchor in Palawan, was shot and killed inside a Ukay-ukay shop in 2011. Marlon Recamata, who was arrested after a brief chase with police, made an extrajudicial confession admitting to the crime and implicated Rodolfo "Bumar" O. Edrad, Dennis C. Aranas, and Armando "Salbakotah" R. Noel, Jr. 

Edrad alleged that former Palawan Governor Mario Joel T. Reyes ordered the killing of Dr. Ortega. A special panel of prosecutors was created to conduct a preliminary investigation. Dr. Ortega's wife filed a Supplemental Affidavit-Complaint implicating former Governor Reyes as the mastermind of her husband's murder. 

The First Panel concluded its preliminary investigation and issued a resolution dismissing the Affidavit-Complaint. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Investigation seeking the admission of mobile phone communications between former Governor Reyes and Edrad, to prove that respondent was the mastermind of her husband's murder, which was denied by the First Panel.

Before Dr. Inocencio-Ortega could file a petition for review, a new panel of investigators was created, in the interest of service and due process, to conduct a reinvestigation in view of the first panel's failure to admit the complainant's additional evidence. Governor Reyes filed a petition to challenge the creation of the Second Panel, arguing that the parties were already afforded due process and that the evidence to be addressed by the reinvestigation was neither new nor material to the case. 

The Second Panel found probable cause and recommended the filing of informations on all accused, including Governor Reyes. 

The Court of Appeals declared the order of the Secretary of Justice to create a second panel null and void and reinstated the First Panel's Resolutions. The Court found that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when she created the Second Panel and that the evidence examined by the Second Panel was not additional evidence but "forgotten evidence" that was already available before the First Panel during the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

Issue:

WoN the Secretary of Justice is authorized to create motu proprio another panel of prosecutors in order to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.


Held: DISMISSED.

The Secretary of Justice is authorized to issue the department order.

The 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice can reverse, affirm, or modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor.

The Secretary of Justice may also order the conduct of a reinvestigation in order to resolve the petition for review. Under Section 11:

SECTION 11. Reinvestigation. If the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary to reinvestigate the case, the reinvestigation shall be held by the investigating prosecutor, unless, for compelling reasons, another prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.

Under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, however, the Secretary of Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the chief state prosecutor even without a pending petition for review. Section 4 states:

SEC. 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. — If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint. xxx If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within her- authority to affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the resolutions of her prosecutors. The secretary of justice, who has the power of supervision and control over prosecuting officers, is the ultimate authority who decides which of the conflicting theories of the complainants and the respondents should be believed. Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice may step in and order a reinvestigation even without a prior motion or petition from a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of justice.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Secretary of Justice issued the order because she had reason to believe that the First Panel's refusal to admit the additional evidence may cause a probable miscarriage of justice to the parties. 

The Second Panel was created not to overturn the findings and recommendations of the First Panel but to make sure that all the evidence, including the evidence that the First Panel refused to admit, was investigated. Therefore, the Secretary of Justice did not act in an "arbitrary and despotic manner,'by reason of passion or personal hostility."

Accordingly, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega's Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice was rendered moot with the issuance by the Second Panel of the Resolution and the filing of the Information against respondent before the trial court.


Notes:

On WoN the issuance of a department order was an executive function beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari or prohibition:

The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of probable cause is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. An administrative agency performs quasi-judicial functions if it renders awards, determines the rights of opposing parties, or if their decisions have the same effect as the judgment of a court.

In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. The prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent-is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the prosecutor does not perform quasi-judicial functions.

This court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitions for certiorari and prohibition are directed only to tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance of the department order was a purely administrative or executive function of the Secretary of Justice.  A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is directed against the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Considering that "full discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch in the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation," the functions of the prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice are not ministerial.

However, even when an administrative agency does not perform a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function, the Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial review when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

——




Recit Version

Facts:

Dr. Gerardo Ortega, a veterinarian and radio anchor in Palawan, was shot and killed in 2011. Marlon Recamata was arrested and confessed to the crime, implicating three others. One of the accused, Rodolfo O. Edrad, alleged that former Palawan Governor Mario Joel T. Reyes ordered the killing of Dr. Ortega. 
A special panel of prosecutors was created to investigate, and Dr. Ortega's wife filed a Supplemental Affidavit-Complaint implicating Reyes. The First Panel dismissed the complaint, but Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Investigation seeking to admit mobile phone communications between Reyes and Edrad. 
In the interest of due process, a new panel was created to conduct a reinvestigation. Governor Reyes filed a petition to challenge the creation of the Second Panel. The Second Panel found probable cause and recommended the filing of charges against all accused, including Reyes. 
The Court of Appeals declared the order to create a second panel null and void, reinstating the First Panel's Resolutions, finding that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when creating the Second Panel, and that the evidence examined was "forgotten evidence" already available during the first investigation.

Issue:

WoN the Secretary of Justice is authorized to create motu proprio another panel of prosecutors in order to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.

Held: DISMISSED.

The Secretary of Justice is authorized to issue the department order.

The 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice can reverse, affirm, or modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice may also order the conduct of a reinvestigation in order to resolve the petition for review.  
Under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the Secretary of Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the chief state prosecutor even without a pending petition for review. The Secretary of Justice may step in and order a reinvestigation even without a prior motion or petition from a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of justice.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Secretary of Justice issued the order because she had reason to believe that the First Panel's refusal to admit the additional evidence may cause a probable miscarriage of justice to the parties. The Second Panel was created not to overturn the findings and recommendations of the First Panel but to make sure that all the evidence, including the evidence that the First Panel refused to admit, was investigated.  
Accordingly, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega's Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice was rendered moot with the issuance by the Second Panel of the Resolution and the filing of the Information against respondent before the trial court.

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more