Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
SEVILLA
DECIN, G.R. No. 149991
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
NACHURA,* JJ.
SPO1
MELZASAR TAYCO,
SPO1
JEFFREY CONTRIVIDA,
SPO1
SUNNY BECARO, SPO1
GLORIA
GONZALES and PO3
ARLO
DEONESA, Promulgated:
Respondents. February 14, 2007
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
complainant Sevilla Decin
(petitioner) assailing the Decision[1]
dated January 26, 2001 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 55768 which annulled the Resolutions dated July 20, 1999 and September 20,
1999 issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ); and the CA Resolution[2]
dated September 14, 2001, denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The case originated from the aforesaid
Resolutions of the DOJ directing the filing of Murder charges
against respondents.
The
antecedents of the case, as aptly summarized by the CA, are as follows:
[Petitioner]
Sevilla Decin (wife of deceased Ernie Decin) through the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint for murder against [respondents] and SPO2
Jude dela Rama, all members of the Philippine National Police,
Meanwhile,
[petitioner] Sevilla Decin as the principal complainant and aggrieved party in
the complaint, appealed the Resolution of
On
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the herein Appeal is hereby DENIED and the Resolution
dated
No motion
for reconsideration was filed by [petitioner] Decin.
Meanwhile, on 09 March 1999, dela Rama
was arraigned before Branch 60, RTC, Cadiz City, in Criminal Case No. 2006-C,
for Murder, and entered a plea of not guilty.
On
WHEREFORE, the appealed resolution is
modified. The City Prosecutor Office of
Cadiz City is hereby directed to file the Information for murder against
respondents SPO1 MELSAZAR (sic) TAYCO, SPO1 JEFFREY CONTRIVIDA, SPO1 SUNNY
BECARO, SPO1 GLORIA GONZALES and SPO3 ARLO DIONEZA and to report to us the
action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
On
Record discloses
that respondents-movants received our resolution on
Respondents
filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the CA questioning
the DOJ’s reversal of the Order dated June 15, 1998 of the Ombudsman
considering that the said Order had already become final and eventually
executed; that the DOJ was devoid of
jurisdiction over the appeal (including preliminary investigation) from the
Resolution of the Cadiz Prosecution Office of Cadiz City in I.S. No. 7697; and that the motion for reconsideration of
the DOJ Resolution dated July 20, 1999 was filed out of time.[4]
On
WHEREFORE, the
petition is hereby GRANTED and
DOJ’s resolutions dated
SO ORDERED.[5]
The CA held that the City Prosecutor
had the prerogative to endorse the results of the preliminary investigation to
the Ombudsman for the latter’s approval; that after the Ombudsman affirmed the
Prosecutor’s findings exonerating the respondents, the petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman but it was denied; that the
petitioner never elevated the ruling of the Ombudsman for judicial review, and,
hence, it became final and executory; that the DOJ also referred the City
Prosecutor’s findings to the Ombudsman after the petitioner failed to comply
with the DOJ directive for her to submit all material and pertinent affidavits
and evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation; that the Ombudsman
likewise denied the petitioner’s appeal and no motion for reconsideration was
filed with the Ombudsman, and, by these reasons, the findings of the Ombudsman
attained finality; that pursuant to the Ombudsman’s Resolutions, the City
Prosecutor filed an information for Murder against SPO2 Jude dela Rama before
the Regional Trial Court; that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman
bars the DOJ from re-asserting its concurrent jurisdiction; that by the DOJ’s
own initiative, the petitioner’s appeal from the City Prosecutor’s findings was
accepted by the Ombudsman and accordingly the latter resolved the matter in
less than thirty days; that the Ombudsman’s ruling cannot later be negated by
the mere expedient of the DOJ’s resolution over petitioner’s appeal; and,
finally, the jurisprudence cited by the petitioner has no bearing on the case.
The
petitioner is now before this Court and raises the following grounds in her
Petition:
I.
THE COURT
A QUO COMMITTED SERIOUS AND PATENT ERRORS IN THE FINDING OF FACTS THAT ARE NOT
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES ON RECORDS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THUS IT
ARRIVED ON CONCLUSION BASED ON TAYCO, ET AL. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS;
II.
THE COURT
A QUO GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DENYING DECIN’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DESPITE
SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS AMPLY SHOWING THAT IT PATENTLY ERRED IN ITS FINDING OF
FACTS;
III.
THE COURT
A QUO COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DECIDING QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD
WITH THE LAW OR APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.[6]
And in her Memorandum, she raises the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER
OR NOT THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE
PREROGATIVE, IF NOT DUTY, OF THE CADIZ CITY PROSECUTOR TO ENDORSE FOR APPROVAL
HER RESOLUTION TO THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BASIS/PROOF
THAT THE OFFENSE COMMITTED WAS IN RELATION TO OFFICE;
II.
WHETHER
OR NOT THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE IS
BARRED FROM RE-ASSERTING HIS JURISDICTION UPON ASSUMPTION BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR
MILITARY OF PETITIONER’S APPEAL.[7]
The petition lacks
merit.
The
principal question before this Court is whether the June 15, 1998 Order of the Ombudsman for the
Military, which approved the September 16, 1997 Resolution of the Cadiz City
Prosecutor dismissing the complaint for Murder against herein respondents, may
subsequently be modified or reversed by the DOJ despite the fact that the
Ombudsman’s Resolution has become final and executory.
The
petitioner, essentially quoting the CA’s findings, argues that the Ombudsman
has no jurisdiction over her case since the City Prosecutor found that the
offense committed had no relation to the office of or performance of official
duties by the respondents; that therefore, the Ombudsman’s Resolution is a
patent nullity and can never attain finality; that the DOJ has the power to
reassert its jurisdiction notwithstanding the DOJ’s prior endorsement of
petitioner’s appeal to the Ombudsman; and, that the Ombudsman has no inherent
power to review the prosecutor’s resolution.
These
contentions are incorrect.
In
Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating
Prosecutors of the Department of Justice,[8]
after a thorough review of law and jurisprudence, this Court comprehensively
discussed the implications of the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman
vis-à-vis the DOJ as to preliminary investigation and prosecution of offenses
committed by public officers and employees, viz:
[T]he Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public officers or employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.
x x x x
Thus, with the jurisprudential declarations that the Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation, the respective heads of said offices came up with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 for the proper guidelines of their respective prosecutors in the conduct of their investigations, to wit:
OMB-DOJ JOINT CIRCULAR NO. 95-001
Series of 1995
x x x
1. Preliminary investigation and prosecution
of offenses committed by public officers and employees IN RELATION TO OFFICE
whether cognizable by the SANDIGANBAYAN or the REGULAR COURTS, and whether
filed with the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN or with the OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL/CITY PROSECUTOR shall be under the control and supervision of the
office of the OMBUDSMAN.
2. Unless the Ombudsman under its
Constitutional mandate finds reason to believe otherwise, offenses NOT IN
RELATION TO OFFICE and cognizable by the REGULAR COURTS shall be investigated
and prosecuted by the OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL/CITY PROSECUTOR, which shall
rule thereon with finality.
x x x x
(signed) (signed)
TEOFISTO T. ANIANO A. DESIERTO
GUINGONA, JR. Ombudsman
Secretary Office of the Ombudsman Department of Justice
x x x x
Sections 2 and 4, Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure on Preliminary Investigation, effective
x x x x
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 x x x x
x x x x
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall
forward the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief
state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction. They shall act on the
resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall
immediately inform the parties of such action.
x x x x
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the
dismissal of the complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself
file the information against the respondent, or direct another assistant
prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary
investigation.
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.
confirm the authority of the DOJ prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigation of criminal complaints filed with them for offenses cognizable by the proper court within their respective territorial jurisdictions, including those offenses which come within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; but with the qualification that in offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the prosecutor shall, after their investigation, transmit the records and their resolutions to the Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action. x x x x
x x x x
[T]he 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.
To reiterate for emphasis, the power
to investigate or conduct preliminary investigation on charges against any
public officers or employees may be exercised by an investigator or by any
provincial or city prosecutor or their assistants, either in their regular
capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. The fact that all prosecutors are in effect
deputized Ombudsman prosecutors under the OMB-DOJ Circular is a mere
superfluity. x x x x 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.
x x x x[9]
(emphasis supplied)
It is undeniable that both the City
Prosecutor and the DOJ, on their own initiative, duly referred petitioner’s case
to the Ombudsman for the latter’s resolution in the exercise of his concurrent
jurisdiction with the DOJ in accordance with OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001
dated
The
Court agrees with respondents’ observation that the instant controversy had
arisen only after the Resolution of the Ombudsman affirmed the Resolution of
the Cadiz City Prosecutor. By then, the Ombudsman’s findings had long become
final and was in fact implemented when accused dela Rama was arraigned before the
(1) It was within the prerogative of the City
Prosecutor of Cadiz – if not his duty, to endorse the result of the preliminary
investigation of the killing of Ernie Decin to the Ombudsman for Military for
his approval. This was so because of a
finding that the offense committed – murder – appears to have been perpetrated
by SPO2 Jude dela Rama in relation to office.
The resolution of the Cadiz City Prosecutor, however, exonerated the
rest of the respondents, petitioners herein, holding that “conspiracy is
absent”. Said resolution was approved by
the Ombudsman for Military in his “Review and Recommendation” dated
(2)
Respondent’s appeal of the Cadiz City Prosecutor’s resolution to the
Department of Justice was also referred by said department on
In short, the resolution of the Ombudsman
for Military dated
(3)
The assumption of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman of the appeal of
respondent herein, as a result of the indorsement of DOJ itself, bars the
latter from re-asserting jurisdiction.
Under the facts obtaining, by DOJ’s own initiation (sic), respondent’s
appeal was accepted and given due course by the Ombudsman who accordingly
resolved the matter in less than thirty days.
Certainly, the Ombudsman’s ruling cannot be put to naught by the mere
expedient of the DOJ also resolving the appeal itself. Such situation is not conducive to orderly
administration of criminal justice in this jurisdiction.
x x x x
Concededly,
murder which is the felony under scrutiny can be “committed in relation to the
public office”. In the case at bar, the
complaint was indorsed by the DOJ to the Ombudsman who found a probable cause
for the crime of murder to exist against dela Rama only excluding the
petitioners herein, and additionally that the crime was committed in relation
to his office. To repeat, the Ombudsman
ruling became final, as it was never elevated to the Court of Appeals for
judicial review. It ought not to be
disturbed now.
x
x x x[10]
And, as stated, since the City
Prosecutor had already implemented the Resolution of the Ombudsman by filing
the Information with the trial court charging dela Rama alone and after the latter had been arraigned, it has
been held that any disposition of the case thereafter as to the dismissal,
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.
Although the prosecutor retains the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in court, he cannot impose his
opinion on the trial court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do
with the case before it.[11]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED
and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROMEO
J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(On Leave)
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On Leave.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura
J. Guerrero (now retired), with Associate Justices Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. (now
retired) and Alicia L. Santos (now retired), concurring.
[2] Ibid.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 184-186.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 14.
[7]
[8] G.R. No. 159747,
[9]
[10] CA rollo, pp. 192-193, 194.
[11]
Roberts, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, 324 Phil. 568, 601 (1996), citing Crespo
v. Mogul, No. L-53373,