Gregorio Honasan II, petitioner vs.The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors Of the Department of Justice
G.R.No. 159747 April 13,2004
TOPICS
Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution
 Powers of the Ombudsman
 Concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation
FACTS:
 August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following in part:
o July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’ etat was committed by military personnel who occupied
Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II
o On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003: A meeting was held and presided by Senator
Honasan in a house located in San Juan, Metro Manila
o Early morning of July 27, 2003: Capt. Gerardo Gambala, in behalf of the military rebels
occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on national television, stating their
withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and the Government of
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Willing to risk their lives to achieve the National
Recovery Agenda (NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe is the only program
that would solve the ills of society.
 Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil stated that:
o June 4, 2003 about 11 pm: Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan arrived with Capt.
Turinga to hold the NRP meeting where they concluded the use of force, violence and
armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP where a junta will be constituted which
will run the new government. They had a blood compact and that he only participated
due to the threat made by Senator Honasan when he said “Kung kaya nating pumatay
sa ating mga kalaban, kaya din nating pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil.”
o July 27, 2003: He saw on TV that Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo
Gambala, Captain Alejano and some others who were present during the NRP meeting
he attended, having a press conference about their occupation of the Oakwood
Hotel. He saw that the letter "I" on the arm bands and the banner is the same letter "I"
in the banner is the same as their blood compact wound.
 August 27, 2003: Senator Honasan appeared with counsel at the DOJ to file a a Motion for
Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case since the imputed acts were
committed in relation to his public office by a group of public officials with Salary Grade 31
which should be handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan
 Senator Honasan then filed a 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 directing him to file his respective counteraffidavits and controverting evidence on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct
the preliminary investigation
ISSUES:
1. Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-001, the office of the Ombudsman
should deputize the prosecutors of the DOJ to conduct the preliminary investigation.
2. Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is ineffective on the ground that it
was not published
3. Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation because
the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby falling
within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.
RULINGS:
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit
1. No.
 Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to wit:
(1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the jurisdiction of
the regular courts. The difference between the two, aside from the category of the courts
wherein they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as distinguished from the authority
to prosecute
 The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case
may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by
any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or
as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.
 circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is just an internal
agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ
 The Constitution, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, Administrative order no. 8 of the office of
the Ombudsman. The prevailing jurisprudence and under the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, All recognize and uphold the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and
the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and
employees.
 The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to conduct the
preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the DOJ's authority to act as
the principal law agency of the government and investigate the commission of crimes
under the Revised Penal Code is derived from the Revised Administrative Code which had
been held in the Natividad case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is
not even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency
which has the jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the Ombudsman may assert
its primary jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation.
2. No.
 In the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954). The only circulars and
regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming
effective.
 In the case of Taňada V. Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986), The Honorable Court rules that:
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is regulating only
the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be
published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions
issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in performance of their duties.
 OMB-DOJ Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between
the DOJ and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and
responsibilities among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the office of the
Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminary investigation. It does not
regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in general.
3. No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not resolve the present
petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DOJ Panel.