Case Summary (G.R. No. 175057)
DOJ Evaluating Panel’s Role and Findings
By DOJ Order No. 90 (Feb. 8, 2006), Secretary Gonzalez created an Evaluating Panel to assess whether the DILG report warranted a preliminary criminal investigation. After document review, witness interviews, and an ocular inspection, the Panel found no formal complaints, supporting evidence (death certificates, autopsy reports), or specific imputations against any individual, and thus concluded that there was insufficient basis to proceed.
NBI-NCR Criminal Investigation and Investigating Panel Formation
The NBI-NCR, upon referral, conducted its own criminal investigation and submitted a report (Mar. 8, 2006) recommending preliminary inquiries for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against petitioners and additional public-office respondents. Pursuant to DOJ Order No. 165 (Mar. 8, 2006), Secretary Gonzalez formed a five-prosecutor Investigating Panel to conduct the preliminary investigation (I.S. No. 2006-291) and, if warranted, to file informations.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition Before the Court of Appeals
Petitioners filed in the Court of Appeals a petition to annul DOJ Orders 90 and 165 and to enjoin further preliminary investigation. They alleged that the DOJ had prejudged the case, lacked impartiality, acted with undue haste, and that the so-called complaint-affidavits were defective, unsworn, and failed to state specific acts or omissions. The CA dismissed their petition on May 24, 2006, and denied reconsideration on October 10, 2006.
Issue: DOJ’s Dual Investigatory Role
Petitioners invoked Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG to argue that the same entity cannot conduct both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation. They claimed the Evaluating Panel’s factual inquiries amounted to criminal investigation and tainted the later inquiry. The Court distinguished Cojuangco, noting that (a) the Evaluating Panel’s activities were solely for sufficiency evaluation and ceased upon report, (b) the NBI-NCR—a separate DOJ unit—conducted the criminal investigation, and (c) there was no vicarious prejudgment since the Evaluating Panel had found no basis to proceed.
Issue: Sufficiency of the Complaint for Preliminary Investigation
The Court explained that Rule 112 distinguishes a “complaint” (a written charge with address of respondents, accompanied by complainant and witness affidavits and supporting documents) from a criminal complaint or information under Rule 110. Complaints for preliminary investigation may be initiated by “any competent person” and need not be consolidated into a single affidavit. The NBI-NCR report served as a transmittal covering sworn affidavits by eyewitnesses. The Court held this satisfied the requirements: the affidavits were sworn, detailed enough to establish probable cause, and petitioners could raise defects in their counter-affidavits.
Issue: Allegations of Prejudgment and Bias
Petitioners pointed to public statements by Secretary Gonzalez and President Arroyo attributing negligenc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175057)
Facts
- On February 4, 2006 the first anniversary episode of ABS-CBN’s “Wowowee” drew thousands to Philsports Arena (formerly “Ultra”) in Pasig City; participants queued for days to secure tickets for a televised bonanza.
- At 6 a.m. entry through two gates triggered a surge along Capt. Javier Street; the crowd’s momentum caused trampling, resulting in 71 deaths (69 women) and hundreds of injuries, prompting cancellation of the show.
- DILG Secretary Angelo Reyes formed an inter-agency fact-finding team (with power to summon witnesses and require documents); its February 7 report detailed venue conditions, crowd control, security, and medical response.
- DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez issued Department Order No. 90 (February 8, 2006), creating an Evaluating Panel to assess whether the DILG report provided “sufficient basis” for a preliminary investigation.
- The Evaluating Panel’s February 20 report concurred on factual findings but recommended no preliminary investigation, citing absence of formal complaints, documentary proof of casualties, names of participants, and specific imputations against responsible persons.
- NBI-NCR conducted a formal criminal inquiry; on March 8, 2006 it transmitted an investigative report recommending preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against petitioners and seven others.
- DOJ issued Department Order No. 165 (March 8, 2006), constituting a five-member Investigating Panel (I.S. No. 2006-291) to conduct preliminary investigation and, if warranted, file information in court.
- Subpoenas were issued on March 9; at the initial hearing petitioners sought inhibition of the panel but no formal resolution, and reserved other remedies pending the next session on March 27.
Procedural History
- March 23, 2006: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul DOJ Department Orders Nos. 90 and 165 and to enjoin further investigation.
- March 27, 2006: CA granted a temporary restraining order; April 24, 2006: hearing on preliminary injunction; May 24, 2006: CA Decision dismissing the petition; October 10, 2006: CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
- O