SPOUSES DACUDAO v. DOJ SECRETARY GONZALES [G.R. No. 188056, January 08, 01!" ERSA#$N, J.

% &ACTS% Petitioners (residents of Davao City) - were among the investors whom Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates in the Legacy Gro ! allegedly defra ded thro gh the Legacy Gro !"s #$ y $ac% agreement# that earned them chec% !ayments that were dishonored. After their written demands for the ret rn of their investments went nheeded, they initiated a n m$er of charges for syndicated estafa against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. in the &ffice of the City Prosec tor of Davao City 'ecretary of J stice iss ed D&J (o. )*+, directing all ,egional 'tate Prosec tors, Provincial Prosec tors, and City Prosec tors to forward all cases already filed against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. to the 'ecretariat of the D&J '!ecial Panel in -anila. .he com!laints of !etitioners were forwarded $y the &ffice of the City Prosec tor of Davao City to the 'ecretariat of the '!ecial Panel of the D&J. Aggrieved $y s ch t rn of events, !etitioners have directly come to the Co rt via !etition for certiorari, !rohi$ition and mandamus, ascri$ing to res!ondent 'ecretary of J stice grave a$ se of discretion in iss ing D& (o. )*+. .hey claim that D& (o. )*+ violated their right to d e !rocess, their right to the e/ al !rotection of the laws, and their right to the s!eedy dis!osition of cases. .hey insist that D& (o. )*+ was an o$str ction of 0 stice and a violation of the r le against enactment of laws with retroactive effect. Petitioners also challenge as nconstit tional the iss ance of D&J -emorand m dated -arch +, +112 e3em!ting from the coverage of D& (o. (o. )*+ all the cases for syndicated estafa already filed and !ending in the &ffice of the City Prosec tor of Cagayan de &ro City. .hey aver that D&J -emorand m dated -arch +, +112 violated their right to e/ al !rotection nder the Constit tion. &'G maintains the validity of D& (o. )*+ and D&J -emorand m dated -arch +, +112, and !rays that the !etition $e dismissed for its tter lac% of merit. $SSUES ). Did !etitioners !ro!erly $ring their !etition for certiorari, !rohi$ition andmandamus directly to the Co rt4 NO +. Did res!ondent 'ecretary of J stice commit grave a$ se of discretion in iss ing D& (o. )*+4 NO 5. Did D& (o. )*+ and D&J -emorand m dated -arch +, +112 violate !etitioners" constit tionally g aranteed rights4 NO 'ELD% .he !etition for certiorari, !rohi$ition and mandamus, $eing $ereft of s $stance and merit, is dismissed. &(r)*+y, !etitioners have nd ly disregarded the hierarchy of co rts $y coming directly to the Co rt with their !etition for certiorari, !rohi$ition and mandamus witho t tendering therein any s!ecial, im!ortant or com!elling reason to 0 stify the direct filing of the !etition. 6e em!hasi7e that the conc rrence of 0 risdiction among the ' !reme Co rt, Co rt of A!!eals and the ,egional .rial Co rts to iss e the writs of certiorari, !rohi$ition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and in0 nction did not give !etitioners the nrestricted freedom of choice of co rt for m.89An nd e disregard of this !olicy against direct resort to the Co rt will ca se the dismissal of the reco rse. Accordingly, every litigant m st remem$er that the Co rt is not the only 0 dicial for m from which to see% and o$tain effective redress of their grievances. As a r le, the Co rt is a co rt of last resort, not a co rt of the first instance. :ence, every litigant who $rings the !etitions for the e3traordinary writs of certiorari, !rohi$ition and mandamus sho ld ever $e mindf l of the !olicy on the hierarchy of co rts, the o$servance of which is e3!licitly defined and en0oined in 'ection 8 of , le ;<, Rules of Court. S,-on.+y, even ass ming arguendo that !etitioners" direct resort to the Co rt was !ermissi$le, the !etition m st still $e dismissed. .he writ of certiorari is availa$le only when any tri$ nal, $oard or officer e3ercising 0 dicial or / asi-0 dicial f nctions has acted witho t or in e3cess of its or his 0 risdiction, or with grave a$ se of discretion amo nting to lac% or e3cess of 0 risdiction, and there is no a!!eal, nor any !lain, s!eedy, and ade/ ate remedy in the ordinary co rse of law. #.he sole office of the writ of certiorari,# according to Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and rust Compan! = 3 3 3 is the correction of errors of 0 risdiction, which incl des the commission of grave a$ se of discretion amo nting to lac% of 0 risdiction. >n this regard, mere a$ se of discretion is not eno gh to warrant the iss ance of the writ. T/, a0u), o1 .()-r,*(on 2u)* 0, 3ra4,, 5/(-/ 2,an) ,(*/,r */a* */, 6u.(-(a+ or 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ 9o5,r 5a) ,:,r-(),. (n an ar0(*rary or .,)9o*(- 2ann,r 0y r,a)on o1 9a))(on or 9,r)ona+ /o)*(+(*y, or */a* */, r,)9on.,n* 6u.3,, *r(0una+ or 0oar. ,4a.,. a 9o)(*(4, .u*y, or 4(r*ua++y r,1u),. *o 9,r1or2 */, .u*y ,n6o(n,. or *o a-* (n -on*,29+a*(on o1 +a5, )u-/ a) 5/,n )u-/ 6u.3,, *r(0una+ or 0oar. ,:,r-()(n3 6u.(-(a+ or 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ 9o5,r) a-*,. (n a -a9r(-(ou) or 5/(2)(-a+ 2ann,r a) *o 0, ,7u(4a+,n* *o +a-; o1 6ur().(-*(on . ?or a s!ecial civil action for certiorari to !ros!er, therefore, the following re/ isites m st conc r, namely= ( a) it m st $e directed against a tri$ nal, $oard or officer e3ercising 0 dicial or / asi-0 dicial f nctions@ ( b) the tri$ nal, $oard, or officer m st have acted witho t or in e3cess of 0 risdiction or with grave a$ se of discretion amo nting to lac% or e3cess of 0 risdiction@ and ( c) there is no a!!eal nor any !lain, s!eedy, and ade/ ate remedy in the ordinary co rse of law.2 .he $ rden of !roof lies on !etitioners to demonstrate that the assailed order was iss ed witho t or in e3cess of 0 risdiction or with grave a$ se of discretion amo nting to lac% or e3cess of 0 risdiction. Aet, !etitioners have not shown a com!liance with the re/ isites. .o start with, they merely alleged that the 'ecretary of J stice had acted witho t or in e3cess of his 0 risdiction. Also, the !etition did not show that the 'ecretary of J stice was an officer e3ercising 0 dicial or / asi-0 dicial f nctions. >nstead, the 'ecretary of J stice wo ld a!!ear to $e not e3ercising any 0 dicial or / asi-0 dicial f nctions $eca se his / estioned iss ances were ostensi$ly intended to ens re his s $ordinates" efficiency and economy in the cond ct of the !reliminary investigation of all the cases involving the Legacy Gro !. T/, 1un-*(on (n4o+4,. 5a) 9ur,+y ,:,-u*(4, or a.2(n()*ra*(4,. T/, 1a-* */a* */, DOJ () */, 9r(2ary 9ro),-u*(on ar2 o1 */, Go4,rn2,n* .o,) no* 2a;, (* a 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ o11(-, or a3,n-y. $*) 9r,+(2(nary (n4,)*(3a*(on o1 -a),) () no* a 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ 9ro-,,.(n3. Nor .o,) */, DOJ ,:,r-(), a 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ 1un-*(on 5/,n (* r,4(,5) */, 1(n.(n3) o1 a 9u0+(- 9ro),-u*or on */, 1(n.(n3 o1 9ro0a0+, -au), (n any -a),. $n.,,., (n Bautista v. Court of Appeals, */, Su9r,2, Cour* /a) /,+. */a* a 9r,+(2(nary (n4,)*(3a*(on () no* a 7ua)(86u.(-(a+ 9ro-,,.(n3 , stating= 3 3 3 BtChe !rosec tor in a !reliminary investigation does not determine the g ilt or innocence of the acc sed. :e does not e3ercise ad0 dication nor r le-ma%ing f nctions. Preliminary investigation is merely in/ isitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the !ersons who may $e reasona$ly charged with a crime and to ena$le the fiscal to !re!are his com!laint or information. >t is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no ! r!ose e3ce!t that of determining whether a crime has $een committed and whether there is !ro$a$le ca se to $elieve that the acc sed is g ilty thereof. 6hile the fiscal ma%es that determination, he cannot $e said to $e acting as a / asi-co rt, for it is the co rts, ltimately, that !ass 0 dgment on the acc sed, not the fiscal.

.here may $e some decisions of the Co rt that have characteri7ed the ! $lic !rosec tor"s !ower to cond ct a !reliminary investigation as / asi- 0 dicial in nat re. 'till, this characteri7ation is tr e only to the e3tent that the ! $lic !rosec tor, li%e a / asi0 dicial $ody, is an officer of the e3ec tive de!artment e3ercising !owers a%in to those of a co rt of law. D t the limited similarity $etween the ! $lic !rosec tor and a / asi- 0 dicial $ody / ic%ly ends there. ?or s re, a / asi-0 dicial $ody is an organ of government other than a co rt of law or a legislative office that affects the rights of !rivate !arties thro gh either ad0 dication or r le-ma%ing@ it !erforms ad0 dicatory f nctions, and its awards and ad0 dications determine the rights of the !arties coming $efore it@ its decisions have the same effect as the 0 dgments of a co rt of law. >n contrast, that is not the effect whenever a ! $lic !rosec tor cond cts a !reliminary investigation to determine !ro$a$le ca se in order to file a criminal information against a !erson !ro!erly charged with the offense, or whenever the 'ecretary of J stice reviews the ! $lic !rosec tor"s orders or resol tions. T/(r.+y, there is no / estion that D& (o. )*+ en0oyed a strong !res m!tion of its validity. >n "B"#"D" $uro %art! &ist v. %urisima, the Co rt has e3tended the !res m!tion of validity to legislative iss ances as well as to r les and reg lations iss ed $y administrative agencies, saying= Administrative reg lations enacted $y administrative agencies to im!lement and inter!ret the law which they are entr sted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to res!ect. ' ch r les and reg lations !arta%e of the nat re of a stat te and are 0 st as $inding as if they have $een written in the stat te itself. As s ch, they have the force and effect of law and en0oy the !res m!tion of constit tionality and legality ntil they are set aside with finality in an a!!ro!riate case $y a com!etent co rt. )<9ErFGl) D& (o. )*+ was iss ed ! rs ant to De!artment &rder (o. *8 that the 'ecretary of J stice had !rom lgated to govern the !erformance of the mandate of the D&J to #administer the criminal 0 stice system in accordance with the acce!ted !rocesses thereof as e3!ressed in ,e! $lic Act (o. )11H) &our*/+y, !etitioners attac% the e3em!tion from the consolidation decreed in D& (o. )*+ of the cases filed or !ending in the &ffice of the City Prosec tor of Cagayan de &ro City, claiming that the e3em!tion traversed the constit tional g aranty in their favor of the e/ al !rotection of law.)H9Petitioners" attac% deserves no consideration. .he e/ al !rotection cla se of the Constit tion does not re/ ire the niversal a!!lication of the laws to all !ersons or things witho t distinction@ what it re/ ires is sim!ly e/ ality among e/ als as determined according to a valid classification. :ence, the Co rt has affirmed that if a law neither $ rdens a f ndamental right nor targets a s s!ect class, the classification stands as long as it $ears a rational relationshi! to some legitimate government end. .hat is the sit ation here. >n iss ing the assailed D&J -emorand m dated -arch +, +112, the 'ecretary of J stice too% into acco nt the relative distance $etween Cagayan de &ro, where many com!lainants against the Legacy Gro ! resided, and -anila, where the !reliminary investigations wo ld $e cond cted $y the s!ecial !anel. :e also too% into acco nt that the cases had already $een filed in the City Prosec tor"s &ffice of Cagayan de &ro at the time he iss ed D& (o. )*+. Given the considera$le n m$er of com!lainants residing in Cagayan de &ro City, the 'ecretary of J stice was f lly 0 stified in e3cl ding the cases commenced in Cagayan de &ro from the am$it of D& (o. )*+. .he classification ta%en into consideration $y the 'ecretary of J stice was really valid. ,es ltantly, !etitioners co ld not in/ ire into the wisdom $ehind the e3em!tion !on the gro nd that the non- a!!lication of the e3em!tion to them wo ld ca se them some inconvenience. &(1*/+y, !etitioners contend that D& (o. )*+ violated their right to the s!eedy dis!osition of cases g aranteed $y the Constit tion. .hey !osit that there wo ld $e considera$le delay in the resol tion of their cases that wo ld definitely $e #a flagrant transgression of !etitioners" constit tional rights to s!eedy dis!osition of their cases. 6e cannot favor their contention. >n .he 'mbudsman v. (urado , the Co rt has clarified that altho gh the Constit tion g arantees the right to the s!eedy dis!osition of cases, s ch s!eedy dis!osition is a fle3i$le conce!t. .o !ro!erly define that conce!t, the facts and circ mstances s rro nding each case m st $e eval ated and ta%en into acco nt. .here occ rs a violation of the right to a s!eedy dis!osition of a case only when the !roceedings are attended $y ve3atio s, ca!ricio s, and o!!ressive delays, or when n0 stified !ost!onements of the trial are so ght and sec red, or when, witho t ca se or 0 stifia$le motive, a long !eriod of time is allowed to ela!se witho t the !arty having his case tried. >t is cogent to mention that a mere mathematical rec%oning of the time involved is not determinant of the conce!t. +59ErFGl) &n the other hand, we do not ignore the !ossi$ility that there wo ld $e more cases reaching the D&J in addition to those already $ro ght $y !etitioners and other !arties. Aet, any delays in !etitioners" cases occasioned $y s ch other and s $se/ ent cases sho ld not warrant the invalidation of D& (o. )*+. T/, Con)*(*u*(on 9ro/(0(*) on+y */, .,+ay) */a* ar, unr,a)ona0+,, ar0(*rary an. o99r,))(4,, an. *,n. *o r,n.,r r(3/*) nu3a*ory. >n fine, we see neither nd e delays, nor any violation of the right of !etitioners to the s!eedy dis!osition of their cases. S(:*/+y, !etitioners assert that the assailed iss ances sho ld cover only f t re cases against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al., not those already $eing investigated. .hey maintain that D& (o. )*+ was iss ed in violation of the !rohi$ition against !assing laws with retroactive effect. Petitioners" assertion is $aseless. A) a 3,n,ra+ ru+,, +a5) )/a++ /a4, no r,*roa-*(4, ,11,-*. 'o5,4,r, ,:-,9*(on) ,:()*, an. on, )u-/ ,:-,9*(on -on-,rn) a +a5 */a* () 9ro-,.ura+ (n na*ur, . T/, r,a)on is that a remedial stat te or a stat te relating to remedies or modes of !roced re .o,) no* -r,a*, n,5 r(3/*) or *a;, a5ay 4,)*,. r(3/*) 0u* on+y o9,ra*,) (n 1ur*/,ran-, o1 */, r,2,.y or */, -on1(r2a*(on o1 a+r,a.y ,:()*(n3 r(3/*). A stat te or r le reg lating the !roced re of the co rts will $e constr ed as a!!lica$le to actions !ending and ndetermined at the time of its !assage. All !roced ral laws are retroactive in that sense and to that e3tent. .he retroactive a!!lication is not violative of any right of a !erson who may feel adversely affected, for, verily, no vested right generally attaches to or arises from !roced ral laws. ?inally, !etitioners have averred $ t failed to esta$lish that D& (o. )*+ constit ted o$str ction of 0 stice. .his gro nd of the !etition, $eing ns $stantiated, was nfo nded. (onetheless, it is not amiss to reiterate that the a thority of the 'ecretary of J stice to ass me 0 risdiction over matters involving the investigation of crimes and the !rosec tion of offenders is f lly sanctioned $y law. .owards that end, the 'ecretary of J stice e3ercises control and s !ervision over all the regional, !rovincial, and city !rosec tors of the co ntry@ has $road discretion in the discharge of the D&J"s f nctions@ and administers the D&J and its ad0 nct offices and agencies $y !rom lgating r les and reg lations to carry o t their o$0ectives, !olicies and f nctions. <'ERE&ORE, the Co rt D$S#$SSES the omni$ s !etition for certiorari, !rohi$ition, and mandamusfor lac% of merit.