Case Digest (G.R. No. 98137)
Facts:
Police Superintendent Hansel M. Marantan v. Department of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 206354, March 13, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petition, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenged the regularity and impartiality of the Department of Justice’s preliminary investigation in NPS Docket No. XVI‑INV‑13C‑00092.On January 6, 2013 a deadly encounter occurred in Atimonan, Quezon between a joint police‑military checkpoint team and a convoy of 13 armed men. President Aquino tasked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to probe the incident. While the NBI investigation was ongoing, then Department of Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima made public statements about the incident that mentioned Marantan. Concerned about prejudgment, Marantan and several soldiers asked the NBI on January 18, 2013 that any resulting action be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman rather than the DOJ.
On March 6–11, 2013 the NBI reported that criminal charges would be filed and the DOJ issued Office Order No. 208 convening a Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation. Marantan filed a Letter‑Motion on March 12, 2013 asking the DOJ to inhibit; the Panel issued subpoenas directing respondents to appear on April 8, 2013. The Panel denied Marantan’s Letter‑Motion by letter dated April 4, 2013.
Marantan filed his Rule 65 Petition on April 8, 2013, and later manifested that the Panel had nevertheless conducted the preliminary investigation that same day and furnished him subpoena attachments. Respondents filed a Comment attaching the Panel’s August 30, 2013 Omnibus Resolution which found probable cause to charge Marantan and several police officers with multiple murder and set forth the factual and forensic bases for that finding. The DOJ prosecutors subsequently filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court charging Marantan with, inter alia, multiple murder. The...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did this case present special and important reasons excusing compliance with the rule on judicial hierarchy such that the Supreme Court should directly exercise original certiorari jurisdiction?
- Did this case present an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies that would excuse Marantan’s failure to seek reconsideration before the DOJ or relief in the Court of Appeals?
- Did the Department of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Marantan’s request that it inhibit from the preliminary investigation?
- Did the Panel of Prosecutors commit grave abuse of discretion during the preliminary investigation that would warrant annulling the Omnibus Resolution?
- Did the fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)