Case Digest (G.R. No. 171542)
Facts:
Angelito P. Magno v. People of the Philippines, Michael Monsod, Esther Luz Mae Gregorio, Gian Carlo Cajoles, Nenette Castillon, Donato Enabe and Alfie Fernandez, G.R. No. 171542, April 06, 2011, the Supreme Court Third Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
On May 14, 2003 the Office of the Ombudsman filed an information (Criminal Case No. DU-10123) for multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder against several National Bureau of Investigation officers, including Angelito P. Magno. At arraignment Magno objected orally to the formal appearance and authority of Atty. Adelino B. Sitoy, who attended as private prosecutor purportedly to prosecute the case for and on behalf of the Ombudsman; Magno later filed a written opposition on July 21, 2003 invoking Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act).
Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City issued an order on September 25, 2003 holding that the Ombudsman is the proper and authorized entity to prosecute the case “to the exclusion of any other entity/person other than those authorized under R.A. 6770,” and on October 1, 2003 denied the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration. On October 13, 2003 the Ombudsman for the Visayas and Atty. Sitoy filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse by the RTC in barring Sitoy’s appearance as private prosecutor; Magno opposed the CA petition and later emphasized that Section 31 limits deputization to fiscals, state prosecutors and government lawyers.
The CA’s original decision (February 16, 2005) allowed the private prosecutor to appear only for the civil aspect of the prosecution; after motions for reconsideration the CA issued an Amended Decision on September 26, 2005 permitting the private prosecutor to intervene in the prosecution of the offense “in collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman.” Magno’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (Resolution dated February 6, 2006). Magno then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA’s Amended Decision.
In his petition Magno principally argued that the CA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the certiorari petition because the Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain certiorari petitions in aid of its appellate jurisdiction involving public officers; he relied on ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari attacking the RTC order that precluded Atty. Sitoy from acting as private prosecutor, or should the petition have been filed with the Sandiganbayan?
- If the CA lacked jurisdiction, may the Supreme Court nonetheless resolve the substantive question whether a private prosecutor may prosecute the case on behalf of the Ombudsman (i.e., the conflict between Section 31, RA No. 6770 a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)