G.R. No. 240056 - Malingin vs. Sandagan

Petitioner: Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting y Simborio), the tribal chieftain of the Higaonon-Asugbuanon Tribe.
Respondents:

PO3 Arvin R. Sandagan, PO3 Estelito R. Avelino, and PO2 Noel P. Guimbaolibot – Police Officers accused of arbitrary detention.
Hon. Prosecutor III Junery M. Bagunas – Prosecutor handling the case.
Hon. Judge Carlos O. Arguelles of Branch 10, RTC, Abuyog, Leyte – Presiding judge in the criminal cases filed.

Petitioner was accused of having carnal knowledge of a 14-year-old minor on six separate occasions, allegedly by means of force, threat, intimidation, and by taking advantage of superior strength.
Six criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. 3821 to 3826) were filed against him charging rape and related offenses under the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, asserting that as a member of an Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) or Indigenous People (IP), disputes involving him should first be resolved according to the customary laws and practices of his tribe.
He based his claim on Sections 65 and 66 of Republic Act No. 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997), arguing that criminal cases against IPs should be initially handled by the NCIP and through customary dispute resolution mechanisms.
On August 31, 2017, the Regional Trial Court, through a Joint Order, denied the Motion to Quash on the ground that RA 8371 is intended for disputes related to customary laws and practices—not for criminal cases governed by the RPC and other penal laws.

Despite the denial of the Motion to Quash, petitioner resorted to filing a Petition for Mandamus with the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, requesting:

A declaration that Branch 10, RTC, Abuyog, Leyte is without jurisdiction over disputes involving Indigenous Peoples;
An order directing the Prosecutor III to refrain from prosecuting cases involving IPs; and
A declaration that the police officers are guilty of Arbitrary Detention for detaining him without a warrant on June 3, 2017.

Petitioner argued that the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly in safeguarding cultural rights, were violated by the actions of the prosecutor, judge, and police officers.
In his submissions, petitioner contended that criminal prosecution was improper since he claimed protection under customary law, thereby alleging that the use of regular courts for such matters should be precluded.
Respondents, including the judge and prosecutor, countered that the petition was procedurally flawed, filed out of time, and that the proper remedy for issues of jurisdiction would be a petition for certiorari, not mandamus, given the discretionary nature of prosecution and adjudication.

Compel respondent Judge and Prosecutor to desist from proceeding with the rape case against the petitioner; and
Declare respondent Police Officers guilty of Arbitrary Detention for detaining the petitioner without warrant.

Whether the petitioner’s invocation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371) provides him exemption from criminal prosecution through the application of customary laws and procedures.

Whether the petition satisfies the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, particularly the existence of a clear legal right and a corresponding ministerial duty on the part of the respondents.