Secretary De Lima vs. Reyes G.R. No. 209330; January 11, 2016 LENEN,
J.:
The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, upon motion or motu proprio, to act on any matter that may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. This action may include, but is not limited to, the conduct of a reinvestigation. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 uestio uestioning ning the regularit regularity y of prelimina preliminary ry investiga investigation tion becomes becomes moot after the trial court court completes its determination of probable cause and issues a !arrant of arrest. !"e case# This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari which assails the Decision and Resolution of the CA, which rendered null and void Department of Justice Order No. 7! issued "# the $ecretar# of Justice. The DO created a second panel of prosecutors prosecutors to conduct a reinvesti%ation of a murder case in view of the first panel of prosecutors& failure to admit the complainant&s additional evidence. $acts# •
•
•
•
•
Dr. 'erardo Orte%a (Dr. Orte%a), also *nown as +Doc 'err#,+ was a veterinarian and anchor of several radio shows in Palawan. On Januar# -, !, at around !/! am, he was shot dead inside the 0a%uio 1a%wa%an 1a%wa%an 2*a#3u*a# in $an Pedro, Puerto Princesa Cit#, Palawan. Palawan. 4 After a "rief "rief chase chase with with polic police e offic officers ers,, Recam Recamata ata was was arrest arrested ed.. On the the same same da# da#, he made made an e5tra6udicial confession admittin% that he shot Dr. Orte%a. e also implicated 8drad, Aranas, Noel, Jr. On 9e"ruar# :, !, 8drad e5ecuted a $inumpaan% $ala#sa# "efore the Counter3Terrorism Division of the N0; where he alle%ed that it was former Palawan 'overnor Re#es who ordered the *illin% of Dr. Orte%a. On 9e"ruar# 7, !, $ecretar# a#or >a#or >ario >ario T. Re#es, Re#es, Jr., Jr., former former >arindu? >arindu?ue ue 'overno 'overnorr Carreon Carreon,, former former Provincial Administrator Att#. $eratu"ias, Recamata, Aranas,
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. ;nocencio3 ;nocencio3Orte Orte%a %a filed filed a >otion >otion to Re3Open Re3Open Preliminar# Preliminar# ;nvesti ;nvesti%ati %ation on that that sou%ht sou%ht the admission of mo"ile phone communications "etween former 'overnor Re#es and 8drad. 1hile the >otion was still pendin%, Dr. ;nocencio3Orte%a ;nocencio3Orte%a filed a >otion for Partial Reconsideration Ad Cautelam of the Resolution. The 9irst Panel denied "oth >otions. The $ecretar# of Justice issued DO No. 7! creatin% a new panel of investi%ators ($econd Panel) to conduct a reinvesti%ation of the case and to address the offer of additional evidence denied "# the 9irst Panel. The DO also revo*ed Department Order No. !=. Dr. ;nocencio3Orte%a filed "efore the $ecretar# a Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam) assailin% the 9irst Panel&s Resolution. 9ormer 'overnor Re#es filed "efore the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi"ition with Pra#er for a 1rit of Preliminar# ;n6unction assailin% the creation of the $econd Panel. e ar%ued that the $ecretar# %ravel# a"used her discretion when she constituted a new panel and that the evidence to "e addressed "# the reinvesti%ation was neither new nor material to the case. The $econd Panel issued the Resolution findin% pro"a"le cause and recommendin% the filin% of informations on all accused, includin% former 'overnor Re#es RTC, Palawan, 0ranch 4 su"se?uentl# issued warrants of arrest on >arch 7, !. owever, the warrants a%ainst former 'overnor Re#es and his "rother were ineffective since the two alle%edl# left the countr# da#s "efore the warrants could "e served. On >arch =, !, former 'overnor Re#es filed "efore the $ecretar# a Petition for Review Ad Cautelam / assailin% the $econd Panel&s Resolution. also filed "efore the CA a $upplemental Petition for Certiorari and Prohi"ition impleadin% RTC, Palawan, 0ranch 4. The CA rendered the Decision declarin% DO No. 7! null and void and reinstatin% the 9irst Panel&s Resolutions. Accordin% to the CA, the $ecretar# committed %rave a"use of discretion when she issued Department Order No. 7! and created the $econd Panel. $he should have modified or reversed the Resolutions of the 9irst Panel pursuant to the !!! NP$ Rule on Appeal instead instead of issuin% DO No. 7! and creatin% the $econd Panel. Therefore, Therefore, the $econd Panel did not have the authorit# to assess the admissi"ilit# and wei%ht of an# e5istin% or additional evidence. /! The $ecretar# $ecretar# of Justice, Justice, the $econd $econd Panel, Panel, and Dr. ;nocencio3O ;nocencio3Orte% rte%a a filed filed a >otion >otion for Reconsideration of the Decision, which was denied "# the CA. A%%rieved, A%%rieved, the $ecretar# of Justice and the $econd Panel filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorar i/-assailin% the Decision of the CA.
2
Petitioners ar%ue that the $ecretar# acted within her authorit# when she issued DO No. 7!. The# ar%ue that her issuance was a purel# e5ecutive function and not a ?uasi36udicial function that could "e the su"6ect of a petition for certiorari or prohi"ition. ;n their su"missions, the# point out that under Repu"lic Act No. !!7 and the !!! NP$ Rule on Appeal, the $ecretar# of Justice has the power to create a new panel of prosecutors to reinvesti%ate a case to prevent a miscarria%e of 6ustice.
•
Respondent ar%ues that the $ecretar# had no authorit# to order motu proprio the reinvesti%ation of the case since Dr. ;nocencio3Orte%a was a"le to su"mit her alle%ed new evidence to the 9irst Panel when she filed her >otion for Partial Reconsideration. e ar%ues that all parties had alread# "een %iven the opportunit# to present their evidence "efore the 9irst Panel so it was not necessar# to conduct a reinvesti%ation. Respondent ar%ues that the $ecretar# &s discretion to create a new panel of prosecutors was not +un"ridled+ since the !!! NP$ Rule on Appeal re?ui re?uires res that that there there "e compe compelli llin% n% circum circumst stan ances ces for for her her to "e a"le a"le to desi% desi%na nate te anoth another er prosecutor to conduct the reinvesti%ation.
•
%SS&ES# . 1hethe 1hetherr the issuan issuance ce of Depa Departm rtmen entt Orde Orderr No. No. 7! 7! was was an e5ecuti e5ecutive ve funct function ion "e#ond "e#ond the scope of a petition for certiorari or prohi"ition@ . 1hether 1hether,, under under the !!! NP$ Rule on Appeal, Appeal, the $ecreta $ecretar# r# of Justice ma#, ma#, even without without a pendin% petition for review, motu proprio order the conduct of a reinvesti%ation@ and /. 1het 1hethe herr this this Peti Petiti tion on for for Cert Certio iora rari ri has has alre alread ad# # "een "een rend render ered ed moot moot "# the the fili filin% n% of the the information in court, pursuant to #respo v. $ogul. 'ELD# . The determin determinatio ation n "# the Department Department of Justice Justice of the e5istenc e5istence e of pro"a"le pro"a"le cause cause is not a ?uasi36u ?uasi36udicia diciall proceed proceedin%. in%. owever, owever, the actions actions of the $ecretar# $ecretar# of Justice Justice in affirmin affirmin% % or reversin% the findin%s of prosecutors ma# still "e su"6ect to 6udicial review if it is tainted with %rave a"use of discretion. ;n Spou Spouse ses s %acud %acudao ao v. Secre Secreta tary ry of Justi Justice, ce, 4: a petit petition ion for for certio certiorar rari, i, prohi" prohi"iti ition on,, and. and. mandamus was filed.a%ainst the $ecretar# of Justice&s issuance of a department order. The assailed order directed all prosecutors to forward all cases alread# filed a%ainst Celso de los An%eles of the
3
1hile the Department of Justice ma# perform functions similar to that of a court of law, it is not a ?uasi36udicial a%enc# The fact that the %&J is the primary prosecution arm of the 'overnment does not ma(e it a uasi)ju uasi)judicia diciall office office or agency agency.. *ts prelimin preliminary ary investig investigatio ation n of cases cases is not a uasi)ju uasi)judici dicial al proceeding. proceeding. "or does the %&J e+ercise a uasi)judicial uasi)judicial function !hen it revie!s the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. ;ndeed, in autista v. #ourt of -ppeals, the $upreme Court has held that a preliminar# investi%ation is not a ?uasi36udicial proceedin%. There ma# "e some decisions of the Court that have characteried the pu"lic prosecutor&s powe powerr to cond conduc uctt a prel prelim imin inar ar# # inve invest sti% i%at atio ion n as ?uas ?uasi3 i36u 6udi dici cial al in natu nature re.. $til $till, l, this this characteriation characteriation is true onl# to the e5tent that the pu"lic prosecutor, prosecutor, li*e a ?uasi36udicial ?uasi36udicial "od#, is an officer of the e5ecutive department e5ercisin% powers a*in to those of a court of law. A writ of prohi"ition, prohi"ition, on the other hand, is directed a%ainst +the proceedin%s proceedin%s of an# tri"unal, corporation, "oard, officer or person, whether e5ercisin% 6udicial, ?uasi36udicial or ministerial functions.+ functions.+ The Department of Justice is not a court of law and its officers do not perform ?uasi3 6udicial functions. The $ecretar# $ecretar# of Justice&s review of the resolutions resolutions of prosecutors prosecutors is also not a ministerial function. 'o(ever, even ("en an a)ministrative a*ency )oes not +erorm a -u)icia, /uasi-u)icia, or ministeria unction, t"e onstitution man)ates t"e eercise o -u)icia revie( ("en t"ere is an ae*ation o *rave ause o )iscretion. !"ereore, any /uestion on ("et"er t"e Secretary Secretary o Justice Justice committe) committe) *rave ause o )iscreti )iscretion on amountin* amountin* to ac4 or ecess o -uris)iction in airmin*, reversin*, reversin*, or mo)iyin* t"e resoutions o +rosecutors +rosecutors may e t"e su-ect o a +etition or certiorari un)er Rue 65 o t"e Rues o ourt. . The !!! NP$ Rule on Appeal Appeal re?uires re?uires the filin% of a petition for for review "efore "efore the $ecretar# $ecretar# of of Justice can reverse, affirm, or modif# the appealed resolution of the provincial or cit# prosecutor or chie chieff stat state e pros prosec ecut utor or.. The The $ecr $ecret etar ar# # of Just Justic ice e ma# ma# also also orde orderr the the cond conduc uctt of a reinvesti%ation in order to resolve the petition for review under $ection . 2nder Rule , $ection - of the Rules of Court, however, the $ecretar# of Justice ma# motu proprio reverse or modif# resolutions of the provincial or cit# prosecutor or the chief state prosecutor even without a pendin% petition for review. The $ecretar# of Justice e5ercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within her authorit# to affirm, nullif#, reverse, or modif# the resolutions of her prosecutors. Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are su"6ect to appeal to the secretar# of 6ustice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, e5ercises the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors@ and who ma# thus affirm, nullif#, reverse or modif# their rulin%s.
4
$ection /=, Chapter B, 0oo* ; in relation to $ection 4, B, and =, Chapter , Title ;;; of the Code %ives the secretar# of 6ustice supervision and control over the Office of the Chief Prosecutor and the Provincial and Cit# Prosecution Offices. The scope of his power of supervision and control is delineated in $ection /B, para%raph , Chapter 7, 0oo* ; of the Code. ;n short, the secretar# of 6ustice, who has the power of supervision and control over prosecutin% prosecutin% office officers, rs, is the ultim ultimat ate e auth authori orit# t# who who decid decides es which which of the confli conflicti ctin% n% theo theorie ries s of the complainants and the respondents should "e "elieved. Sect Sectio ion n of Repu Republ blic ic -ct "o. "o. /001 /001/ / also also %ives %ives the $ecre $ecretar tar# # of Justi Justice ce the autho authorit rit# # to directly act on an# +pro"a"le miscarria%e of 6ustice within the 6urisdiction of the prosecution staff staff,, re%ion re%ional al prosec prosecut ution ion offic office, e, and and the provin provincia ciall prose prosecut cutor or or the the cit# cit# prose prosecut cutor or.+ .+ Accordin%l#, Accordin%l#, the $ecretar# of Justice ma# step in and order a reinvesti%ation reinvesti%ation even without a prior motion or petition from a part# in order to prevent an# pro"a"le miscarria%e of 6ustice. Dr. ;nocencio3Orte%a filed a >otion to Re3Open the preliminar# ;nvesti%ation "efore the 9irst Panel Panel in order order to admit admit as evide evidenc nce e mo"ile mo"ile phon phone e conve conversa rsatio tions ns "etw "etween een 8drad 8drad and and respondent and ar%ued that these phone conversations tend to prove that respondent was the mastermind of her hus"and&s murder. The 9irst Panel, however, dismissed the >otion on the %round that it was filed out of time. ;n the same Resolution, the 9irst Panel denied Dr. ;nocencio3 Orte%a&s >otion for Partial Reconsideration on the %round that +the evidence on record does not suffice to esta"lish pro"a"le cause.+ ;t was then that the $ecretar# of Justice issued Department Order No. 7!. ;n her repl#3letter dated $eptem"er =, ! to respondent&s counsel, the $ecretar# of Justice further e5plained that The order to reinvesti%ate was dictated "# su"stantial 6ustice and our desire to have a comprehensive investi%ation. 1e do not want an# stone unturned, or an# evidence overloo*ed. As stated in D.O. No. 7!, we want to %ive +"oth parties all the reasona"le opportunit# to present their evidence.+ &n)er t"ese circumstances, it is cear t"at t"e Secretary o Justice issue) De+artment r)er No. 10 ecause s"e "a) reason to eieve t"at t"e $irst 7ane8s reusa to a)mit t"e a))itiona evi)ence may cause a +roae miscarria*e o -ustice to t"e +arties. !"e Secon) 7ane (as create) not to overturn t"e in)in*s an) recommen)ations o t"e $irst 7ane ut to ma4e sure t"at all t"e evi)ence, incu)in* t"e evi)ence t"at t"e $irst 7ane reuse) to a)mit, (as investi*ate). !"ereore, t"e Secretary o Justice )i) not act in an aritrary an) )es+otic manner, y reason o +assion or +ersona "ostiity. /. Dr. ;nocen ;nocencio3O cio3Orte% rte%a&s a&s Petition Petition for Review "efore "efore the $ecretar# $ecretar# of Justice was rendered rendered moot with the issuance "# the $econd Panel of the Resolution dated >arch , ! and the filin% of the ;nformation a%ainst respondent "efore the trial court. The filin% of the information and the issuance "# the trial court of the respondent&s warrant of arrest has alread# rendered this Petition moot. Once the information is filed in court, the court
5
ac?uires 6urisdiction of the case and an# motion to dismiss the case or to determine the accused&s %uilt or innocence rests within the sound discretion of the court. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in #ourt any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acuittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the #ourt. -lthough the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution prosecution of criminal cases even !hile the case is already in #ourt he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The #ourt is the best and sole judge on !hat to do !ith the case before it. The determination of the case is !ithin its e+clusive jurisdiction and competence. motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the #ourt !ho has the optio option n to grant grant or deny the same. same. *t does does not matte matterr if this this is done done before before or after after the the arrai arraignm gnmen entt of the accuse accused d or that that the motio motion n !as !as filed filed afte afterr a reinve reinvesti stiga gatio tion n or upon upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice !ho revie!ed the records of the investigation. Thus, it would "e ill3advised for the $ecretar# of Justice to proceed with resolvin% respondent&s Petition for Review pendin% "efore her. ;t would "e more prudent to refrain from entertainin% the Peti Petiti tion on cons consid ider erin in% % that that the the tria triall cour courtt alre alread ad# # issu issued ed a warr warran antt of arre arrest st a%ai a%ains nstt =: respondent. The issuance of the warrant si%nifies that the trial court has made an independent determination of the e5istence of pro"a"le cause. ere, the trial court has alread# determined, independentl# of an# findin% or recommendation "# the 9irst Panel or the $econd Panel, that pro"a"le cause e5ists for the issuance of the warrant of arrest a%ainst respondent. Pro"a"le cause has "een 6udiciall# determined. Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred to the trial court. A petition for certiorari ?uestionin% the validit# of the preliminar# investi%ation in an# other venue has "een rendered moot "# the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the conduct of arrai%nment. The prudent course of action at this sta%e would "e to proceed to trial. Respondent, however, is not without remedies. e ma# still file an# appropriate action "efore the trial court or ?uestion an# alle%ed irre%ularit# in the preliminar# investi%ation durin% pre3trial. The Petition is D%S:%SSED for "ein% moot.
6
