Mina v. Tandoc
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an Affidavit-Complaint for Perjury, as defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc. The complaint was lodged before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan. Procedural History: Following a preliminary investigation, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against Tandoc for lack of probable cause. Petitioners appealed this dismissal to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, which affirmed the initial finding of no probable cause. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari, ruling that they had availed of the wrong remedy. The appellate court held that, according to Department of Justice Department Circular No. 70-A, petitioners should have first appealed the adverse ruling of the Regional State Prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice before resorting to judicial remedies. This petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assails the Court of Appeals' dismissal on the grounds of availing a wrong remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies (failure to appeal the ORSP ruling to the Secretary of Justice).
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated May 22, 2017 and March 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150130 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for its resolution on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari because the petitioners had indeed exhausted their administrative remedies. Applying the framework established in Cariaga v. Sapigao, the Court clarified that Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 70-A delegated the authority to rule with finality to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) for certain cases. Specifically, if a complaint is filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR) and the offense is cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), the ORSP's resolution is final. Perjury, defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is punishable by imprisonment for less than six (6) years, placing it within the jurisdiction of first-level courts. Since the complaint originated in Pangasinan (outside NCR) and involved an MTC-level offense, the ORSP's affirmance of the dismissal was final and not appealable to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ). Therefore, the petitioners correctly sought judicial review via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, as there were no further administrative steps required.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing outright a petition for certiorari on the ground of availing the wrong remedy when the Regional State Prosecutor's resolution was already final and executory, thus exhausting administrative remedies.