G.R. No. 149311 - Department of Justice vs. Liwag

Petitioners: Department of Justice (DOJ) through Secretary Hernando Perez, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) through Director Reynaldo Wycoco, and state prosecutors Leo B. Dacera III, Misael M. Ladaga, Mary Josephine P. Lazaro.
Respondents: Hon. Hermogenes R. Liwag, Presiding Judge, Branch 55, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila; and high-ranking Philippine National Police (PNP) officials Panfilo M. Lacson and Michael Ray B. Aquino.
Petitioners seek to reverse the RTC Order dated June 22, 2001, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated June 25, 2001, which enjoined them from conducting preliminary investigation in Civil Case No. 01-100934.

Mary Ong, alleging herself as a former undercover agent of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and PNP Narcotics Group, filed a complaint-affidavit on January 8, 2001, with the Ombudsman against PNP officials including Lacson and Aquino, and certain private individuals.
The Ombudsman docketed complaints as OMB Case Nos. 4-01-00-76, 4-01-00-77, 4-01-00-80, 4-01-00-81, 4-01-00-82, and 4-01-00-84. The Ombudsman found the complaint sufficient in form and substance and directed respondents to file counter-affidavits.
Respondents complied on February 28, 2001, praying for dismissal.

On March 9, 2001, Mary Ong and other witnesses executed sworn statements before the NBI, reiterating allegations contained in her Ombudsman complaint-affidavit.
On May 4, 2001, NBI Director Wycoco recommended the investigation of Lacson, Aquino, other PNP officials, and private individuals for kidnapping, murder, and kidnapping for ransom, attaching sworn statements of witnesses.
On May 7, 2001, the DOJ panel of prosecutors issued subpoenas to Lacson, Aquino and others for preliminary investigation scheduled May 18, 2001.
Respondents, through counsel, opposed the DOJ preliminary investigation on May 18, 2001, arguing dismissal on account of pending complaints with the Ombudsman involving the same facts and reliance on the Court’s ruling in Uy v. Sandiganbayan asserting Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction.

Motion to dismiss is not allowed under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure;
The rank and civil classification of respondents do not affect jurisdiction;
Joint Circular No. 95-001 provides that offenses not in relation to office are to be investigated by regular courts/prosecutors.

On the same day, respondents filed a petition for prohibition with the RTC Manila, claiming DOJ had no jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation on cases involving them due to Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction.

On June 22, 2001, RTC Judge Liwag issued an order granting the petition for prohibition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining DOJ from conducting the preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman disclaimed jurisdiction or categorized offenses as not related to official duties.
The injunction order reasoned that the Ombudsman had taken hold of the case and DOJ’s investigation would interfere and violate orderly judicial procedures.

DOJ, NBI, and the prosecutorial panel filed this petition raising issues regarding jurisdiction and alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the injunction.
They argue that the DOJ has jurisdiction under Administrative Order No. 08, series of 1990, and Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court to conduct preliminary investigation.
The core issue centers on whether DOJ can conduct preliminary investigation despite a similar complaint involving the same accused and facts pending before the Ombudsman.

Whether the RTC erred in enjoining DOJ and its prosecutors from conducting the preliminary investigation, thereby committing grave abuse of discretion and disregarding DOJ’s clear authority to investigate under pertinent laws and administrative issuances.

Whether the Ombudsman has effectively taken over the investigation to the exclusion of DOJ’s jurisdiction, thus justifying the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

Whether the parallel investigations by DOJ and Ombudsman involve the same offenses, respondents, and victims, affecting the propriety of concurrent jurisdiction.

Whether the issuance of the writ prejudged the main case for prohibition without a full hearing on the merits.