G.R. No. 159747 - Honasan II vs. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159747)

Procedural History

The complaint was docketed with the DOJ Panel (I.S. No. 2003‑1120) and a subpoena issued to petitioner for preliminary investigation. Honasan filed a Motion for Clarification contesting DOJ jurisdiction and asserting that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate officials and that, if charged, the Sandiganbayan would have exclusive cognizance given his salary grade. The DOJ Panel, by order of September 10, 2003, noted the motion but directed parties to submit counter‑affidavits and controverting evidence, deferring resolution of the jurisdiction motion to the determination of probable cause. Honasan filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 seeking to annul the DOJ Panel’s order for grave abuse of discretion.

Issues Presented

(1) Whether the DOJ Panel has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation for coup d’état against Honasan; (2) Whether OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular No. 95‑001 violates the Constitution or R.A. No. 6770; (3) Whether the DOJ Panel gravely abused discretion by deferring resolution of Honasan’s jurisdictional motion and directing submission of counter‑affidavits.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Honasan argued that (a) the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction and authority to investigate public officials and thus DOJ lacks power to conduct the preliminary investigation; (b) the DOJ Panel was not validly deputized under OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular No. 95‑001 and that the circular was ultra vires, unconstitutional, beyond the Ombudsman’s statutory powers, and inoperative for lack of publication; (c) because he is a high‑ranking official (Salary Grade 31), any offense in relation to his office is within the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsman must handle preliminary investigation; and (d) the DOJ Panel committed grave abuse by deferring ruling on the jurisdictional challenge and proceeding to require counter‑affidavits.

Respondents’ Contentions (DOJ Panel and Ombudsman)

DOJ Panel: asserted statutory authority under the Revised Administrative Code and P.D. No. 1275 (as amended) to investigate crimes and prosecute offenders; contended the alleged acts were not shown to be directly related to Honasan’s office; maintained the jurisdictional challenge was effectively a motion to dismiss (prohibited in preliminary investigation) and that passing upon the motion during resolution of probable cause was appropriate.
Ombudsman: argued the DOJ’s concurrent authority to conduct preliminary investigations of public officers is long recognized; the OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular is an internal guideline that does not confer or create jurisdictional authority but coordinates existing concurrent functions; deputization is authorized constitutionally and by R.A. No. 6770 (Sec. 31); publication of the joint circular is not required because it is internal and contains no penal provision.

Governing Law and Precedents Summarized by the Court

The Court relied on the 1987 Constitution’s grant of investigative powers to the Ombudsman (Article XI) but emphasized that the grant of investigatory power is not necessarily exclusive. It reviewed prior jurisprudence: Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG (1990) and Deloso v. Domingo (1990) recognizing the Ombudsman’s broad investigative authority but also noting concurrent investigatory powers of other agencies; Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993) and Natividad v. Felix (1994) further clarifying that the Ombudsman’s authority is primary (particularly for cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan) but not exclusive, and that prosecutorial or investigatory agencies such as provincial/city prosecutors and the DOJ may conduct preliminary investigations, subject to the Ombudsman’s right to take over. Administrative Order No. 8 (Ombudsman) and Rule 112 (Sections 2 and 4) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure were treated as recognizing that provincial/city prosecutors, state prosecutors and other authorized officers may conduct preliminary investigations; in cases within Sandiganbayan original jurisdiction, the investigating prosecutor must transmit records and obtain the Ombudsman’s written authority to file an information with the Sandiganbayan.

Court’s Analysis and Rationale

Source of DOJ authority: The Court held that the DOJ Panel’s authority to investigate derives from the Revised Administrative Code (powers of the DOJ, including investigation and prosecution) and P.D. No. 1275 (creation of the National Prosecution Service), not from the joint circular; those statutes grant the DOJ power to investigate crimes within territorial jurisdiction including offenses that may be within Sandiganbayan’s original jurisdiction, subject to procedural safeguards.
Concurrency and primary jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman’s power to investigate is primary but not exclusive; the Ombudsman may, in its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, take over investigations at any stage from other investigatory agencies. Thus DOJ prosecutors may validly conduct preliminary investigations of allegations against public officials.
Nature and effect of OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular No. 95‑001: The Court characterized the circular as an internal agreement to coordinate handling of complaints and investigations between the DOJ and the Ombudsman, not a source of jurisdictional power. The circular’s provisions (e.g., that matters in relation to office shall be under Ombudsman control) were seen as internal guidelines consistent with existing law. The Court held the circular did not require publication to be effective because it is internal and contains no penal sanctions.
Deputization and filing in Sandiganbayan: While DOJ investigators can conduct preliminary investigations, the Court recognized procedural constraints—investigating prosecutors cannot dismiss complaints or file informations in cases within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy (per Section 4, Rule 112). The Ombudsman retains the power to take over investigations at any stage.
On petitioner’s jurisdictional and procedural arguments: The Court found no grave abuse in the DOJ Panel’s order deferring the jurisdictional motion and directing submission of counter‑affidavits; the Panel reasonably reserved the jurisdictional issue for resolution in the course of determining probable cause. The Court declined to decide, on certiorari, whether the alleged offense was “in relation to” petitioner’s office and thus exclusively within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction, so as not to pre‑empt the ongoing preliminary investigation and possible factual determinations.

Holding / Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and upheld the authority of the DOJ Panel to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Court concluded that the DOJ’s investigatory power is statutory (Administrative Code and P.D. 1275), the Ombudsman’s investigatory authority is primary but not exclusive, the OMB‑DOJ Joint Circular is an internal coordination instrument (not invalid for lack of publication), and the DOJ Panel did not commit grave abuse in deferring disposition of the jurisdictional motion while proceeding with the preliminary investigation.

Separate Opinions — Justice Vitug (separate opinion)

Justice Vitug emphasized that preliminary investigation is a substantive right and that an accused may rightly challenge the jurisdiction or authority of the investigating body. She cautioned that the OMB‑DOJ joint arrangement should not be construed as a blanket delegation; deputization under Sec. 31, R.A. 6770 must be specific and the Ombudsman should retain supervisi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159747)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II challenging actions of: (a) the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ Panel), (b) CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano (complainant), and (c) Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo (respondent).
Relief sought: annulment of the DOJ Panel's Order of September 10, 2003 for alleged grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of a complaint charging petitioner with the crime of coup d'etat.
Petition premised on claim that preliminary investigation falls within the exclusive or primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman and, if filed in court, the Sandiganbayan should take cognizance because petitioner is a public official with Salary Grade 31.

Relevant Chronology of Events

August 4, 2003: Affidavit-complaint filed with DOJ by CIDG-PNP-P Director Eduardo Matillano alleging coup d'etat involving petitioner and military personnel occupying Oakwood on July 27, 2003.
August 27, 2003: Petitioner appeared before the DOJ Panel and filed a Motion for Clarification disputing DOJ jurisdiction and asserting Ombudsman jurisdiction; asked that proceedings be suspended pending resolution.
September 1, 2003: Complainant Matillano filed Comment/Opposition to petitioner's motion.
September 10, 2003: DOJ Panel issued an Order noting the motion and comment, deferring resolution of the jurisdictional motion and directing respondents to file counter-affidavits and controverting evidence by September 23, 2003.
After administrative and oral argument proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petition was decided on April 13, 2004.

Material Facts as Alleged in the Affidavit-Complaint

Complainant Eduardo Matillano alleged that a coup d'etat was committed by military personnel who occupied Oakwood on July 27, 2003 and that Senator Gregorio Honasan was involved.
The affidavit relies heavily on the sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil, quoted verbatim in the complaint, which alleges:
- Ragil attended a meeting on June 4, 2003 in San Juan, Metro Manila, presided over by Senator Honasan.
- Approximately 30 persons attended; they were given a 3–4 page document on the National Recovery Program (NRP).
- Senator Honasan allegedly discussed the NRP, graft and corruption, and concluded that force, violence and armed struggle were necessary to achieve NRP goals.
- During the meeting Honasan allegedly asked attendees "In ka ba or out?" and made statements suggesting killing enemies and traitors; he allegedly presented a plan to overthrow the government by armed revolution and form a junta.
- Ragil recounts a blood-compact rite involving cutting the left inner arm, imprinting blood marks on a prayer and on an NRP flag; Ragil participated under fear for his life.
- Ragil alleges subsequent encounters with Capt. Gary Alejano who allegedly assigned him a task in the event of a D-Day at Malacañang; Ragil refused.
- Ragil states he saw on television on July 27, 2003 the Oakwood occupiers and recognized the blood-imprinted letter on banners and armbands.
- Ragil executed the affidavit to charge Senator Honasan and several military officers for violation of Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code (coup d'etat).

Issues Presented to the Court

Whether the DOJ Panel of Investigators has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over the charge of coup d'etat against petitioner.
Whether OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 violates the Constitution and R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
Whether the DOJ Panel committed grave abuse of discretion by deferring resolution of petitioner's Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction instead of resolving it immediately.

Positions and Arguments of the Parties — Petitioner

The Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over all public officials, including petitioner, particularly because the charge pertains to acts in relation to his public office.
The DOJ Panel is not authorized or deputized under OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 to investigate petitioner; even if claimed deputization exists, the Joint Circular is ultra vires, unconstitutional, beyond Ombudsman powers under R.A. 6770, and inoperative for lack of publication; therefore it is null and void.
Because petitioner is charged with coup d'etat in relation to his office, the Ombudsman — not the DOJ — has jurisdiction; if filed in court, Sandiganbayan — not regular courts — has cognizance because petitioner holds Salary Grade 31.
The DOJ Panel gravely abused discretion in deferring resolution of the Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction because the jurisdictional question is determinative for the validity of the preliminary investigation and should be decided first.
The DOJ Panel acted improperly by directing petitioner to file counter-affidavit rather than resolving the jurisdictional motion, effectively denying a prompt adjudication.

Positions and Arguments of the Respondent DOJ Panel

The DOJ derives jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute from Section 3, Chapter I, Title III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 and from P.D. No. 1275 (as amended by P.D. No. 1513), which create and empower the National Prosecution Service to investigate crimes and prosecute offenders.
The alleged crime is not shown to be directly or intimately related to petitioner’s public office as Senator; the factual allegations lack the requisite nexus to his office.
Challenge to the constitutionality of the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular is misplaced because DOJ jurisdiction is statutory, not derived from the Joint Circular.
Petitioner’s Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction is, in substance, a motion to dismiss, which is a prohibited pleading under Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; the prosecuting panel is not required to act on such motion at the preliminary investigation stage.
The DOJ Panel did not reject petitioner’s motion but postponed resolution to be passed upon in the determination of probable cause; thus, it did not commit grave abuse.

Positions and Arguments of the Respondent Ombudsman

The DOJ Panel has authority because coup d'etat may fall under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction only if committed "in relation to office," pursuant to Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249; absent a showing of relation to office, DOJ may investigate.
The DOJ’s concurrent authority with the Ombudsman to investigate cases involving public officials has been recognized by jurisprudence (e.g., Sanchez vs. Demetriou) and is reflected in Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Ombudsman’s deputization of DOJ prosecutors via the Joint Circular is valid; there is no legal requirement that deputization be issued per individual case; Section 31 of R.A. 6770 authorizes deputization, and the Constitution allows the Ombudsman to request assistance from other government agencies.
The Joint Circular need not be published