Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
o
o
o
Facts:
August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following in part:
July 27, 2003: crime of coup d etat was committed by military personnel who occupied
Oakwood and Senator Gregorio Gringo Honasan, II
On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003: A meeting was held and presided by Senator Honasan in
a house located in San Juan, Metro Manila
Early morning of July 27, 2003: Capt. Gerardo Gambala, in behalf of the military rebels
occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on national television, stating their
withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and the Government of
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Willing to risk their lives to achieve the National
Recovery Agenda (NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe is the only program that
would solve the ills of society.
Senator Honasan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano and
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of September 10, 2003 directing him to file
his respective counter-affidavits and controverting evidence on the ground that the DOJ
has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
Issues:
1. Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-001, the office of the
Ombudsman should deputize the prosecutors of the DOJ to conduct the
preliminary investigation.
2. Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is ineffective on the
ground that it was not published
3. Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher)
thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.
Held: Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit
1. No.
Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two
classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling
under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the two, aside
from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority to
investigate as distinguished from the authority to prosecute
The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any
Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office
of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance,
either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.
circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is just an internal
agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ
The 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
In the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954). The only circulars and
regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be published before
becoming effective.
In the case of Taada V. Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986), The Honorable Court rules that:
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither
is publication required of the so called letters of instructions issued by the administrative
superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in
performance of their duties.
OMB-DOJ Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the
DOJ and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and responsibilities
among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the office of the Ombudsman in the conduct
of preliminary investigation. It does not regulate the conduct of persons or the
public, in general.
3. No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not resolve the
present petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DOJ
Panel.