Jurisdiction over PNP cases: DOJ and Ombudsman

Initial interpretation in DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 10 (Aug 19, 1991) suggested that crimes by PNP members fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts, excluding Sandiganbayan.
This interpretation was based on reading "regular courts" as excluding Sandiganbayan.
It was found that this understanding conflicts with statutes defining jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan.
The term "regular courts" is not explicitly defined by law and may mean civilian courts as opposed to military courts.
The divergent interpretations could cause delays and unnecessary disputes in case prosecution.

To avoid jurisdictional conflicts, DOJ and Ombudsman issued joint guidelines:
1. DOJ and Ombudsman investigators and prosecutors share concurrent jurisdiction over PNP criminal complaints.
2. If a case falls under Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction (per PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861), the Ombudsman may assume investigation from DOJ at any stage.
3. Prosecution in Sandiganbayan is exclusively handled by the Ombudsman via its Special Prosecutor or designated prosecutors.

Statements in DOJ Circular No. 10 saying the Ombudsman cannot take over investigations of cases not cognizable by Sandiganbayan are subject to future clarification.
DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 10 is deemed amended in aspects inconsistent with this joint circular.

Definitions and interpretations of "regular courts" regarding jurisdiction over PNP members' criminal cases.
Concurrent investigative jurisdiction between DOJ and Ombudsman.
Exclusive prosecutorial jurisdiction of Ombudsman in Sandiganbayan.
Clear procedural guidelines to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and delays in prosecution.

Harmonize jurisdictional views to prevent conflicts and delays.
Ensure efficient prosecution of cases involving PNP personnel.
Confirm statutory alignment with the jurisdictional powers of Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman.