HONASAN vs.

DOJ PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS

G.R. No. 159747/ April 13, 2004
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Facts –

In the early morning of July 27, 2003, Capt. Gerardo Gambala, for and in behalf
of the military rebels occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on nation
television, stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and
the Government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and they are willing to risk their
lives in order to achieve the National Recovery Agenda of Sen. Honasan, which they
believe is the only program that would solve the ills of society. A sworn statement of
AFP Major Perfecto Ragil referred to by PNP/P Director Matillano was executed stating
facts before and during the Oakwood Mutiny and in order to charge SENATOR
GREGORIO "GRINGO" HONASAN, Capt. FELIX TURINGAN, Capt. GARY
ALEJANO, Lt. ANTONIO TRILLANES, Capt. GERARDO GAMBALA and others for
violation of Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code for the offense of "coup d'etat".

Petitioner, together with his counsel, appeared at the DOJ. He filed a Motion for
Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case, asserting that since the
imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the
Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the corresponding
preliminary investigation; that should the charge be filed in court, it is the
Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take cognizance of the case
considering that he belongs to the group of public officials with Salary Grade 31. Hence,
Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II filed the herein petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director
Eduardo Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of September 10,
2003 on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
investigation.

Issue –

1) Whether or not respondent Department of Justice Panel of Investigators has

jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over the charge of coup
d'etat against petitioner.

Ruling –

The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the
Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction
to investigate offenses committed by public officers or employees. The authority of the
Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is concurrent
with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state
prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any
investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.

In other words, respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded from conducting any
investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of penal laws but if the
cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, then respondent
Ombudsman may, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage.
Considering the Court's finding that the DOJ has concurrent jurisdiction to investigate
charges against public officers, the fact that petitioner holds a Salary Grade 31 position
does not by itself remove from the DOJ Panel the authority to investigate the charge
of coup d'etat against him.

Thus, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.