CRIMPRO Jurisdiction on preliminary investigation of cases that fall under the Sandiganbayan

Honasan II vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of GR No. 159747

the Department of Justice Date: April 13, 2004
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.

Nature of the case: The present case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel
and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing an order on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation

FACTS
 On August 4, 2003, an affidavit-complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by respondent CIDG-
PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano alleging that after a thorough investigation, he found that certain military
personnel and Senator Gregorio Honasan II have committed the crime of coup d’etat on July 27, 2003.
The complaint was based on the sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil wherein he stated in his affidavit
that he is a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and was invited to the National Recovery Program
(NRP) with a certain Captain Alejano. In the said meeting, Sen. Gringo Honasan presided the gathering wherein a
plan on overthrowing the government through force, violence and armed struggle in order to achieve the goals of
NRP. Ragil opposed the proposition but due to threats on his person, he was forced to pursue it and even join
their blood compact.
 This prompted the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ to send a subpoena to Honasan for preliminary
investigation.
 On August 27, 2003, Honasan and his counsel appeared at the DOJ and filed a Motion for Clarification
questioning DOJ’s jurisdiction over the case. He asserted that since the since the imputed facts were committed
in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has jurisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation. They further alleged that it is the Sandiganbayan and not the regular courts that should
take cognizance of the case since they are public officials with Salary Grade 31.
 On September 10, 2003, DOJ thereafter issued an order deferring the resolution of Honasan’s motion to clarify
jurisdiction.
 Hence, Senator Honasan II filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the
DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing an order on the ground that the DOJ has no
jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Court then heard the parties in oral arguments on the
following issues:

1. Whether respondent Department of Justice Panel of Investigators has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation over the charge of coup d'etat against petitioner;
2. Whether Ombudsman-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 violates the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 or
Ombudsman Act of 1989; and
3. Whether respondent DOJ Panel of Investigators committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the
resolution of the petitioner's motion to clarify jurisdiction considering the claim of the petitioner that the DOJ
Panel has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation.

Petitioner’s Contentions:
1. The Office of Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation.
2. DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized under OMB-DOJ Joint Ciruclar No. 95-001 to conduct the
preliminary investigation of Honasan.
3. OMB-DOJ Joint Circular NO. 95-001 is ultra vires for being violative of the Constitution.
4. Since Honasan is charged with coup d’etat in relation to his office, it is the Ombudsman which has the
jurisdiction, not the DOJ Panel.

DOJ Panel’s Arguments:

1. DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation pursuant to Sec. 3, Chapter 1, Title III, Book
 IV of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to PD No. 1275, as amended by PD No. 1513.
2. Honasan Is charged with a crime that is not directly nor intimately related to his public office as a
Senator.
3. The challenge against the constitutionality of the OMB-DOJ Joint circular is misplaced.
ISSUE/S
I. Whether or not the DOJ Panel has the authority and jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over
the case of Honasan.
RATIO

YES. The authority of respondent DOJ Panel is based not on the assailed OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 but on the
provisions of the 1987 Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV, governing the DOJ. Under the said provision,
the DOJ, as the government’s legal counsel and prosecution arm, has the power to investigate the commission of
crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system.
With regard to the issue of the Ombudsman jurisdiction over the case, Par. 1 of Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution
does not exclude other government agencies tasked by law to investigate and prosecute cases involving public officials.
Under R.A 6770 or “The Ombudsman Act of 1989,” the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving
public officers or employees is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the
government. Such investigatory agencies referred to include the PCGG and the provincial and city prosecutors and their
assistants, the state prosecutors and the judges of the municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial court. In other
words the provision of the law has opened up the authority to conduct preliminary investigation of offenses cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan to all investigatory agencies of the government duly authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation
under Section 2, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the only qualification that the Ombudsman may
take over at any stage of such investigation in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction (when the case is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan).

Therefore, the fact that Honasan holds a Salary Grade 31 position (and that his case may be cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan) does not remove from the DOJ Panel the authority to investigate the charge of coup d'etat against him.

RULING

The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

NOTES:
 The case did not dwell on whether or not the offense allegedly committed by Honasan is under one of those
enumerated in the Sandiganbayan Law that fall within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. However, just in case
Atty. Señga will ask if the case would fall under Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, the answer would be: NO.
Sandiganbayan shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction when (1) the offense committed by the public officer
is in relation to his office and (2) the penalty prescribed be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for
6 years or a fine of 6,000 Php. In this case, although the Court found that the second requisite was met, the first
requirement is wanting. Coup d’etat is a crime committed by public officials but not in relation to one’s office.
Presiding the meeting of the NRP and planning out ways to overthrow the government by Honasan are in no ways
in relation to his office as a senator.
Acuña