G.R. No. 167471 - Sarmiento vs. Zaratan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167471)

Factual Background of the Stampede

In the lead-up to February 4, 2006, thousands gathered at the Philsports Arena for the anniversary episode of the “Wowowee” program broadcast by ABS-CBN. Long queues and overcrowding at entry points produced a rush when gates opened early morning, resulting in a fatal stampede that killed 71 persons (majority women) and injured hundreds. The episode was cancelled and emergency responses were required.

Administrative and Investigative Responses

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), through Secretary Angelo Reyes, convened an inter-agency fact-finding team with authority to summon witnesses and collect documents. That team produced a report submitted to the DOJ on February 7, 2006. By DOJ Department Order No. 90 (Feb. 8, 2006) an Evaluating Panel was created to assess whether the DILG report provided a sufficient basis to initiate a preliminary investigation. The Evaluating Panel reviewed the facts, performed an ocular inspection and related evaluative measures, concurred with certain DILG findings regarding venue and crowd control, but reported on February 20, 2006 that there was no sufficient basis to proceed with preliminary investigation for several enumerated reasons (no formal complaint filed, lack of documentary proof of deaths/injuries, lack of identification of persons involved or specific acts attributable to named individuals, and absence of witness sworn statements naming responsible persons).

NBI Criminal Investigation and DOJ Investigating Panel

Acting on the Evaluating Panel’s referral, the NBI-NCR conducted a criminal investigation and submitted a report (March 8, 2006) with supporting affidavits and documents recommending a preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against petitioners and other individuals. On March 8, 2006, DOJ Department Order No. 165 designated a five-member Investigating Panel of state prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation (docketed I.S. No. 2006-291), issue subpoenas, and, if warranted, file information. Subpoenas were issued and the Investigating Panel commenced preliminary investigation proceedings in March 2006.

Procedural History in the Courts Below

Petitioners moved orally for inhibition of the Investigating Panel but the motion was not resolved formally. On March 23, 2006 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which granted a temporary restraining order and later conducted hearings but ultimately dismissed the petition. Meanwhile the Investigating Panel issued a Resolution on October 9, 2006 finding probable cause to indict the petitioners for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries, and recommended separate preliminary investigation of certain public officials. The present petition to the Supreme Court challenges the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and seeks annulment of DOJ Department Orders Nos. 90 and 165 and of the Investigating Panel’s proceedings.

Petitioners’ Principal Legal Contentions

Petitioners asserted multiple grounds: (1) respondents had prejudged the case and lost impartiality due to public declarations by DOJ Secretary Gonzalez and the President and because of allegedly undue haste in proceedings; (2) respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by conducting both the criminal investigation (by the NBI and arguably by the Evaluating Panel) and the preliminary investigation, contrary to Cojuangco v. PCGG; (3) the complaint- affidavits upon which the preliminary investigation proceeded were defective — not sworn as a formal complaint, lacking specific allegations of acts or omissions attributable to petitioners — and thus the Investigating Panel abused its discretion in proceeding.

Legal Issue Framing and Approach

The Court framed the issues for resolution, choosing to address first whether the DOJ had authority to conduct the investigation and whether the Evaluating Panel’s acts constituted a disqualifying criminal investigation; second, whether the complaint and supporting affidavits satisfied the requirements to initiate a preliminary investigation; and third, whether public statements and expedited action established disqualifying prejudgment or bias warranting inhibition or judicial intervention at the preliminary stage.

On the DOJ’s Investigatory Power and the Cojuangco Distinction

The Court held that the DOJ’s exercise of investigatory functions fell within its statutory mandate under the Administrative Code (E.O. No. 292), which vests the Department with powers “to investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system.” The Court distinguished Cojuangco v. PCGG: in Cojuangco the same entity that had conducted a full criminal investigation, issued sequestration orders, and filed complaints was disqualified from then conducting a preliminary investigation because it would be unreasonable to expect it to reverse its own prior findings. Here, by contrast, the Evaluating Panel’s activities were evaluative in nature — including review, ocular inspection and fact- finding to determine whether a preliminary investigation should proceed — and the Evaluating Panel expressly found no sufficient basis to proceed. The NBI, a constituent unit of DOJ, conducted the criminal investigation; that fact alone does not disqualify the DOJ as an institution from authorizing or conducting the separate preliminary investigation. The Court also observed that the Evaluating Panel was functus officio upon submission of its report, and that the Evaluating Panel’s finding tended to favor petitioners, undermining any inference of institutional prejudgment.

On the Sufficiency and Form of the Complaint for Preliminary Investigation

The Court explained that a “complaint” for purposes of Rule 112 preliminary investigation is not necessarily a single sworn document containing all allegations; rather, the complaint must be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and witnesses and supporting documents to establish probable cause (Rule 112, Sec. 3(a)). The Rules recognize that necessary allegations may be distributed among transmittal letters, affidavits, and supporting papers. The Court cited Soriano v. Casanova and related jurisprudence to affirm that a transmittal letter and attached sworn affidavits may substantially comply with Rule 112. The Court emphasized the inquisitorial and fact-finding purpose of preliminary investigation — it is often the stage when identities and specific imputation are discovered — an

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167471)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari challenged the Court of Appeals May 24, 2006 Decision and October 10, 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 93763.
Petitioners sought annulment of DOJ Department Order No. 90 (Feb. 8, 2006) and Department Order No. 165 (Mar. 8, 2006), and all orders, proceedings and issuances emanating therefrom.
Petitioners further sought prohibition of the DOJ from conducting any preliminary investigation in the case known as the “Ultra Stampede” case.
The Court of Appeals had issued a temporary restraining order, conducted a hearing on a writ of preliminary injunction, and issued the assailed decisions; the Supreme Court reviewed those rulings here.
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition; costs assessed against petitioners.

Factual Background: The Ultra Stampede

On and before February 4, 2006, thousands gathered at the Philsports Arena (formerly Ultra) in Pasig City for the first anniversary episode of the noontime show Wowowee aired by ABS-CBN.
Queuing began days in advance; on the morning of February 4, 2006, after entry gates opened, a crowd surge along Capt. Javier Street produced a fatal stampede.
The stampede resulted in 71 deaths (69 of whom were women) and hundreds wounded; the episode of the show was cancelled.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), through Secretary Angelo Reyes, created an inter-agency fact-finding team to investigate circumstances surrounding the stampede; the team had authority to summon and interview witnesses, require documents, and enlist assistance of other agencies.
The DILG fact-finding team submitted its report to the DOJ on February 7, 2006.

Administrative and Investigatory Steps Taken

By DOJ Department Order No. 90 (Feb. 8, 2006), Secretary Raul Gonzalez constituted an Evaluating Panel to evaluate the DILG Report and determine whether there was sufficient basis to proceed with a preliminary investigation on the basis of the documents submitted.
The Evaluating Panel included Senior State Prosecutor Joselita De Claro-Mendoza (chair), State Prosecutor Merba Waga, NBI-NCR Regional Director Ruel Lasala, and NBI Investigating Agent Arnold Rosales.
The Evaluating Panel submitted a February 20, 2006 Report concurring with the DILG Report on venue, security, crowd control and emergency plans, but concluded there was no sufficient basis at that time to proceed with a preliminary investigation for reasons including lack of formal complaints, lack of supporting documentary proof (death certificates, autopsy reports), absence of names and specific participation of persons involved, and that most victims did not name alleged responsible persons in sworn statements.
The NBI-NCR, acting on referral by the Evaluating Panel, conducted a criminal investigation and submitted an investigation report via transmittal letter dated March 8, 2006 (NBI-NCR Report) with supporting documents recommending preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries (Rev. Penal Code Art. 365 in relation to Arts. 249, 263, 265 & 266, as amended) against the petitioners and seven others.
By DOJ Department Order No. 165 (Mar. 8, 2006), Secretary Gonzalez designated a five-member panel of state prosecutors (Investigating Panel) to conduct the preliminary investigation docketed I.S. No. 2006-291, NCR-NBI v. Santos-Concio, et al., and if warranted, to file an information for prosecution.
The Investigating Panel issued subpoenas on March 9, 2006 directing respondents to appear for preliminary investigation on March 20 and 27, 2006.
At the initial preliminary investigation, petitioners orally moved for the inhibition, disqualification or desistance of the Investigating Panel; the Investigating Panel did not formally resolve the motion; petitioners reserved the right to file a formal motion at the next hearing.
Petitioners filed a certiorari and prohibition petition with the Court of Appeals on March 23, 2006; the CA issued a temporary restraining order on March 27, 2006 and later dismissed petitioners’ petition in its May 24, 2006 Decision and October 10, 2006 Resolution.
The Investigating Panel, by Resolution dated October 9, 2006, found probable cause to indict the petitioners for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries and recommended separate preliminary investigations against certain public officials; one member (State Prosecutor Peter Ong) dissented in that resolution.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Investigating Panel’s October 9, 2006 Resolution on October 30, 2006, which was pending at the time of the Supreme Court decision.

Parties and Key Persons Identified

Petitioners included Ma. Rosario Santos-Concio; Ma. Socorro V. Vidanes; Marilou Almaden; Cipriano Luspo; Morly Stewart Nueva; Harold James Nueva; Norbert Vidanes; Francisco Rivera; Mel Feliciano; Jean Owen Ercia.
Additional respondents recommended in the NBI-NCR Report included Wilfredo “Willy” B. Revillame (host), Rey Cayabyab, Jess Velardo, Erlinda S. Reis, Rosenbar O. Viloria, Wilfron Onanad, and Chito Payumo; other public officials named included Pasig City officials and Philsports Complex security persons.
Evaluating Panel members, Investigating Panel composition and NBI-NCR as investigative actor are named respondents/participants in the administrative and investigatory process.
The Department of Justice Secretary at the time was Raul M. Gonzalez; President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s public statement was cited.

Issues Presented by Petitioners

Whether the DOJ, through Department Orders Nos. 90 and 165, exceeded its authority by conducting both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation in the same matter (invoking the rule in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG).
Whether the Evaluating Panel actually conducted a criminal investigation rather than merely evaluating the DILG Report, thereby prejudging the case and disqualifying the DOJ from conducting the preliminary investigation.
Whether alleged complaint-affidavits and supporting affidavits were defective because they were not sworn to by the NBI-NCR as complainant, thus failing to comply with Rule 112, Rule 110 and other requirements for initiating a preliminary investigation.
Whether the allegations in the affidavits and NBI-NCR Report failed to state specific acts or omissions imputable to petitioners sufficient to allow them to prepare counter-affidavits.
Whether Secretary Gonzalez’s and President Arroyo’s public statements, and the speed by which proceedings were pursued, amounted to prejudgment and bias that vitiated the impartiality of the DOJ, the Evaluating Panel, and the Investigating Panel, thereby constituting grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Framework and Authorities Relied Upon in the Decision

Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), Book IV, Title III, Chapter 1: DOJ powers and functions to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders; specifically, the DOJ’s mandate to investigate.
Rules of Court, Ru