G.R. No. 206354 - Marantan vs. Department of Justice

On January 6, 2013, a violent shootout known as the Atimonan Encounter occurred in Atimonan, Quezon.
The incident involved a coordinated operation by the Philippine National Police PRO-4A and the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ First Special Forces Battalion on one side, and 13 fully armed individuals riding in a convoy on the other.
The factual controversy centered on whether the incident was a legitimate shootout or a premeditated act resulting in multiple murders.

Following the event, then President Benigno Aquino III ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to probe the incident.
During the early stages of the investigation—before all police and armed forces personnel had submitted their affidavits—then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila De Lima made public pronouncements that reportedly mentioned Police Superintendent Hansel M. Marantan.
Alarmed by these pronouncements and the seeming appearance of prejudgment, Marantan, along with several soldiers represented by counsel, submitted a letter-motion to the head of the NBI, requesting that upon the conclusion of the investigation, actions against those responsible be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman rather than carried out by the DOJ.

On March 11, 2013, the DOJ, through Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano, issued DOJ Office Order No. 208, convening a Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation in NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13C-00092.
Marantan then filed a Letter-Motion on March 12, 2013, requesting that the DOJ refrain from personally conducting the investigation and instead forward the records to the Ombudsman.
Subsequent service of a Subpoena on March 19, 2013, directed Marantan and his co-respondents to appear before the Panel for a preliminary investigation hearing on April 8, 2013.

On April 8, 2013, after the Panel had already conducted the preliminary hearing and furnished copies of attachments to the served Subpoena, Marantan filed his Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
The petition alleged that the DOJ, due to lack of impartiality and independence demonstrated by Secretary De Lima’s public pronouncements, had prejudged the case, thereby violating Marantan’s right to due process and equal protection.
Marantan’s prayer sought injunctive relief to restrain the continuation of the preliminary investigation, annul DOJ Office Order No. 208 and related documents, and mandate the forwarding of case records to the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Panel’s Omnibus Resolution, issued on August 30, 2013, found probable cause to charge petitioner and his co-respondents with multiple murder.
The investigation revealed a highly irregular three-layered checkpoint operation, suggesting premeditation and the utilization of superior strength, treachery, and the aid of additional armed personnel.
Forensic evidence and witness accounts contradicted the claim of a legitimate shootout, instead supporting the theory of a prearranged plan aimed at eliminating specific individuals.

Petitioner argued that his petition was an exception to the rules of judicial hierarchy and exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the alleged bias of the DOJ Secretary and the urgency imposed by the proximity of the preliminary investigation.
However, an information criminalizing petitioner was subsequently filed before the trial court, thereby raising the mootness of the petition and transferring the determination of guilt or innocence to the trial court.

Whether the case is an exception to the rule on judicial hierarchy, which generally mandates that remedies be sought first in the proper forum before directly invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Petitioner contended that the Department of Justice’s conduct, particularly the public statements of Secretary De Lima, warranted direct intervention by the Supreme Court.
Respondents argued that the proper forum was the appellate court and that the petitioner’s challenge did not merit bypassing lower courts.

Whether the case constitutes an exception to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Petitioner maintained that filing a motion for reconsideration would have been futile and prejudicial given the circumstances.
Respondents asserted that petitioner’s failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies rendered the petition procedurally defective.

Whether the respondent DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s request for inhibition from the preliminary investigation.

Petitioner alleged that DOJ Secretary De Lima’s pronouncements and actions showed bias and premature prejudgment, disqualifying the DOJ from impartially conducting the preliminary investigation.
Respondents countered that there was no evidence of such grave abuse and that the DOJ acted within its jurisdictional bounds.

Whether the Panel of Prosecutors exhibited grave abuse of discretion during the preliminary investigation itself.

Petitioner argued that the Panel’s proceedings were tainted by bias stemming from the prior conduct of the DOJ Secretary and the overall handling of the case.
Respondents maintained that the Panel’s findings were evidence-based and free from judicial impropriety.

Whether the case had become moot due to the filing of criminal information before the trial court, thus shifting jurisdiction and rendering the petition's relief unnecessary.

The filing of the information and the issuance of an arrest warrant were viewed as events that terminated the justiciable controversy pursued in the petition.
Respondents emphasized that once the trial court assumed jurisdiction, the issue of preliminary investigation fairness became an academic exercise.