Natividad v. Felix
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from a complaint filed by the wife of the deceased Severino L. Aquino, alleging that the petitioner, Municipal Mayor Arnulfo Natividad, was responsible for Aquino's death at the Ramos Police Station on February 20, 1989. The Philippine National Police requested the Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor to investigate the petitioner for this offense. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor initiated a preliminary investigation (I.S. 93-1038), issuing a subpoena to the petitioner. Concurrently, the PNP filed a criminal complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which issued a warrant of arrest. The MCTC later found probable cause for murder and recommended bail. The Provincial Prosecutor approved the filing of an information for murder, but with no bail recommended. This led to the filing of an information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, presided over by respondent Judge Augusto N. Felix. The petitioner moved to withhold the warrant and dismiss the case, or alternatively, to remand for further preliminary investigation. The RTC recalled the warrant and remanded the case. The petitioner's request for the investigation to be transferred to Manila was denied. Subsequently, a panel of prosecutors found probable cause, and an amended information was filed, adding more defendants. The respondent judge admitted the amended information and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail. The petitioner then moved to remand the case for preliminary investigation and to quash the warrant, arguing lack of jurisdiction by the Provincial Prosecutor and the RTC, and asserting that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction. The respondent judge denied this motion and committed the petitioner to jail. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a review of the respondent judge's actions, specifically the admission of the amended information and the directive for his arrest. The core of the petition is the contention that the Provincial Prosecutor and the RTC lacked jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation and try the case. Petitioner argues that under Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman, not the Provincial Prosecutor, has the authority to conduct preliminary investigations of offenses committed by public officers, especially those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner invokes the ruling in Deloso v. Domingo to support this claim. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by denying him due process, specifically by admitting the amended information before the lapse of the period for filing a counter-affidavit, thereby violating his right to a preliminary investigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended information and directing the petitioner's arrest. Whether the Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the offense allegedly committed by the petitioner, a Municipal Mayor; and whether the Ombudsman, and not the Provincial Prosecutor, has the sole jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of the alleged offense. Whether the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and not the RTC. Whether the petitioner was denied due process and the right to file a counter-affidavit.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged denial of due process and the right to file a counter-affidavit: The Court found no denial of due process. The petitioner was afforded opportunities to present his counter-affidavit. He was notified to submit it on August 19, 1993, but instead filed a manifestation and motion for cancellation and extension. While the requested extension was denied, he was given an additional five days. Despite this extended period, the petitioner failed to submit his counter-affidavit. Consequently, the prosecution filed the amended information. The admission of the amended information and the issuance of the warrant of arrest were therefore not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. On the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation and the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman: The Court held that the Provincial Prosecutor has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of offenses allegedly committed by public officers, unless such offenses are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not exclusive but concurrent with other investigating agencies. On the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, as defined by Presidential Decree No. 1861, requires that the offense committed by a public officer must be 'in relation to their office' and that the prescribed penalty be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. In this case, while the penalty for murder met the second requirement, the first requirement, that the offense be 'in relation to his office,' was not met. Therefore, the case was not exclusively within the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction, nor within the Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction. On the requirement that the offense be 'in relation to their office': The Court reiterated that the offense must be committed 'in relation to their office' for it to fall under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, a requirement that was found wanting in this case. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the act was committed in the performance of his official functions, stating it could not be construed as such under the Local Government Code.
Main Doctrine
The Provincial Prosecutor has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation for offenses committed by public officers, unless the offense is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and falls within the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not exclusive but concurrent with other investigating agencies. A public officer's act or omission must be 'in relation to their office' for it to fall under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, and consequently, the Ombudsman's primary investigative jurisdiction.