Case Summary (G.R. No. 221139)
Petitioner’s Claim and Relief Sought
Sumatra invoked a January 3, 2007 Resolution of the Dadantulan Tribal Court absolving him of rape charges. Relying on Sections 15 and 65 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371), he filed a Rule 65 petition for writ of mandamus to compel respondents to honor the tribal court’s resolution and discontinue his criminal prosecution for rape (Criminal Case No. CBU-81130).
Procedural History
• November 14, 2006: Complaint-Affidavit for rape filed by Lorriane Igot before Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office.
• April 4, 2007: Probable cause found; information filed and raffled to RTC Branch 12.
• September 13, 2007: RTC ordered an arrest warrant. Actual arrest occurred July 2, 2013.
• Post-arrest: Sumatra’s counsel moved to quash on IPRA grounds; denied August 29, 2013.
• 2015: “Customary lawyer” filed motions to release Sumatra; RTC required proof of authority to practice and took no action.
• November 11, 2015: Petition for mandamus filed directly with the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (jurisdiction over special civil actions, recognition of indigenous rights).
• Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371), notably:
– Section 15: Right to use customary justice systems within indigenous communities, subject to compatibility with the national legal system and international human rights.
– Section 65: Primacy of customary laws in resolving disputes among members of the same indigenous cultural community.
• Rule 65, Sec. 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (writ of mandamus requisites).
Issue
Whether RA 8371 ousts the jurisdiction of regular courts over criminal offenses committed by indigenous persons, thereby mandating dismissal of the rape prosecution and enforcement of the Dadantulan Tribal Court’s absolution.
Supreme Court’s Holding
The petition is denied. RA 8371 does not remove criminal jurisdiction from courts. Customary dispute resolution applies only within indigenous communities for civil or intra-community conflicts and must be compatible with the national legal system. It does not shield an accused from prosecution for crimes, which are offenses against the State.
Legal Reasoning
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
• Special civil actions (mandamus) must first be sought in lower courts absent exceptional circumstances.
• The Court nevertheless addressed the novel question on IPRA’s scope.Mandamus Requirements (Rule 65, Sec. 3)
• Petitioner must show a clear, established right and a corresponding ministerial duty unlawfully neglected by respondents.
• No ministerial duty exists for prosecutors or courts to defer criminal proceedings in favor of tribal resolutions under IPRA.Scope of Sections 15 and 65, RA 8371
• Section 15 permits customary justice only “within their respective communities” and “compatible with the national legal system.”
• Section 65 governs civil or community dispu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221139)
Facts
- Roderick D. Sumatra, also known as Ha Datu Tawahig, tribal chieftain of the Higaonon Tribe, was accused of rape by Lorriane Fe P. Igot via a Complaint-Affidavit filed on November 14, 2006 before the Cebu City Prosecutor.
- The “Dadantulan Tribal Court,” a body constituted by the concerned Council of Elders, issued on January 3, 2007 a Resolution absolving Sumatra of criminal, civil, and administrative liability.
- On April 4, 2007, Prosecutor I Lineth Lapinid found probable cause to charge Sumatra with rape and recommended the filing of an information.
- The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-81130 at RTC Branch 12, Cebu City. On September 13, 2007, Judge Estela Alma Singco directed the issuance of an arrest warrant, which was effected only on July 2, 2013.
Procedural History
- July 2, 2013: Sumatra was arrested and thereafter filed a Motion to Quash and a Supplemental Motion to Quash on the ground that RTC had no jurisdiction under Sections 15 and 65 of RA 8371 (IPRA).
- August 29, 2013: Judge Singco denied the Motions to Quash, ruling that IPRA did not apply to the prosecution of a criminal “dispute” and that customary law did not oust court jurisdiction in non-ancestral domain matters.
- May 11, 2015: Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr. (self-styled “customary lawyer”) filed a Motion to Release the Indigenous Person, echoing the earlier quash motions.
- June 5, 2015 & September 11, 2015: RTC Branch 12 issued Orders noting defects in Gonzales’s pleadings and requiring proof of his authority to appear as counsel.
- November 11, 2015: Sumatra filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65, seeking to compel respondents to honor the Dadantulan Tribal Court Resolution and to cease the criminal proceedings.
Issue
- Whether the Supreme Court should issue a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Singco and the Cebu City prosecutors to desist from proceeding with the rape prosecution against Roderick D. Sumatra by virtue of the January 3, 2007 Resolution of the Dadantulan Tribal Court and the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Sumatra claims a clear legal right under IPRA (especially Sections 15 and 65) and related laws to have his case decided by customary justice mechanisms of his indigenous community.
- He asserts respondents have a ministerial duty to respect the Dadantulan Tribal Court’s exculpatory Resolution an