HONASAN v. DOJ PANEL OF PROSECUTORS, G.R. No.

159747, April 14, 2004

One liner: The DOJ and Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases
involving public officials.

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.

Honasan for his part, argues that the DOJ has no power and jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary
investigation on him, as such power and jurisdiction lies only with the Ombudsman, by virtue of his
being a public official.

The DOJ however argues that it 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. Furthermore, the DOJ argues that Honasan is charged with a crime
that is not directly nor intimately related to his public office as a Senator,thus, the DOJ has jurisdiction
over him and may validly conduct a preliminary investigation on him.

Issue: Whether or not the DOJ Panel has the authority and jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation over the case of Honasan.
Ruling: 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.