12. De Lima v. Reyes (Kara) of Department Order No.

710 was an executive function beyond the scope of

January 11, 2016 | Leonen, J. | permissible delegation – delegation to admin a petition for certiorari or prohibition; The fact that the DOJ is the primary
bodies prosecution arm of the Government does not make it a quasi-judicial office
or agency. Its preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial
PETITIONER: SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function when it
PROSECUTOR STEWART ALLAN A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT reviews the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause
STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M. BARCELLANO AND ASSISTANT in any case. However, even when an administrative agency does not
STATE PROSECUTOR GERARD E. GAERLAN perform a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function, the
RESPONDENT: MARIO JOEL T. REYES Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial review when there is an
allegation of grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, any question on
whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion
SUMMARY: Dr. Ortega was killed. It was alleged in the Sinumpang
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or
Salaysay of Edrad that Governor Reyes ordered the killing. On February 7,
modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition
2011, Secretary Leila De Lima issued Department Order No. 091 creating a
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
special panel of prosecutors (First Panel) to conduct preliminary
investigation. The First Panel concluded its preliminary investigation and
issued the Resolution dismissing the Affidavit-Complaint filed by Dr.
DOCTRINE: While the Department of Justice may perform functions
Ortega’s wife. The Secretary of Justice issued DO No. 710 creating a new
similar to that of a court of law, it is not a quasi-judicial agency. xxx a
panel of investigators (Second Panel) to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court cannot be
and to address the offer of additional evidence denied by the First Panel. The
brought to assail the Secretary of Justice’s resolution dismissing a
DO also revoked Department Order No. 091. Former Governor Reyes filed
complaint for lack of probable cause since this is an “essentially
before the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ
executive function.” xxx. However, even when an administrative agency
of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Second Panel. He
does not perform a judicial, quasi- judicial, or ministerial function, the
argued that the Secretary gravely abused her discretion when she constituted
Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial review when there is an
a new panel and that the evidence to be addressed by the reinvestigation was
allegation of grave abuse of discretion. xxx. Therefore, any question on
neither new nor material to the case. The CA rendered the Decision declaring
whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion
DO No. 710 null and void and reinstating the First Panel's Resolutions.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or
According to the CA, the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion
modifying the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition
when she issued Department Order No. 710 and created the Second Panel.
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
She should have modified or reversed the Resolutions of the First Panel
pursuant to the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal instead of issuing DO No. 710 and
creating the Second Panel. Therefore, the Second Panel did not have the FACTS:
authority to assess the admissibility and weight of any existing or additional
evidence. Petitioners argue that the Secretary acted within her authority when
1. Dr. Gerardo Ortega (Dr. Ortega), also known as "Doc Gerry," was
a veterinarian and anchor of several radio shows in Palawan. On
she issued DO No. 710. They argue that her issuance was a purely executive
January 24, 2011, at around 10:30 am, he was shot dead inside the
function and not a quasi-judicial function that could be the subject of a
Baguio Wagwagan Ukay-ukay in San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City,
petition for certiorari or prohibition. In their submissions, they point out that
Palawan.5 After a brief chase with police officers, Recamata was
under Republic Act No. 10071 and the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, the
arrested. On the same day, he made an extrajudicial confession
Secretary of Justice has the power to create a new panel of prosecutors to
admitting that he shot Dr. Ortega. He also implicated Edrad,
reinvestigate a case to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Whether the issuance
Aranas, Noel, Jr.
2. On February 6, 2011, Edrad executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay allegedly left the country days before the warrants could be served.
before the Counter-Terrorism Division of the NBI where he 12. On March 29, 2012, former Governor Reyes filed before the
alleged that it was former Palawan Governor Reyes who ordered Secretary a Petition for Review Ad Cautelam 23 assailing the
the killing of Dr. Ortega. Second Panel's Resolution. He also filed before the CA a
3. On February 7, 2011, Secretary Leila De Lima issued Department Supplemental Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition impleading
Order No. 091 creating a special panel of prosecutors (First Panel) RTC, Palawan, Branch 52.
to conduct preliminary investigation. 13. The CA rendered the Decision declaring DO No. 710 null and void
4. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega, Dr. Ortega's wife, filed a Supplemental and reinstating the First Panel's Resolutions. According to the CA,
Affidavit-Complaint implicating former Governor Reyes as the the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion when she issued
mastermind of her husband's murder. Former Governor Reyes' Department Order No. 710 and created the Second Panel. She
brother, Coron Mayor Mario T. Reyes, Jr., former Marinduque should have modified or reversed the Resolutions of the First Panel
Governor Carreon, former Provincial Administrator Atty. pursuant to the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal instead of issuing DO
Seratubias, Recamata, Aranas, Lesias, Regalado; Noel, Edrad, and No. 710 and creating the Second Panel. Therefore, the Second
several John and Jane Does were also implicated. Panel did not have the authority to assess the admissibility and
5. The First Panel concluded its preliminary investigation and issued weight of any existing or additional evidence. 30
the Resolution dismissing the Affidavit-Complaint. 14. The Secretary of Justice, the Second Panel, and Dr. Inocencio-
6. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Ortega filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, which
Investigation that sought the admission of mobile phone was denied by the CA.
communications between former Governor Reyes and Edrad.
While the Motion was still pending, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a
15. Aggrieved, the Secretary of Justice and the Second Panel filed the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration Ad Cautelam of the Resolution. present Petition for Review on Certiorari 34assailing the Decision of
The First Panel denied both Motions. the CA.
7. The Secretary of Justice issued DO No. 710 creating a new panel 16. Petitioners argue that the Secretary acted within her authority when
of investigators (Second Panel) to conduct a reinvestigation of the she issued DO No. 710. They argue that her issuance was a purely
case and to address the offer of additional evidence denied by the executive function and not a quasi-judicial function that could be
First Panel. The DO also revoked Department Order No. 091. the subject of a petition for certiorari or prohibition. In their
8. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed before the Secretary a Petition for submissions, they point out that under Republic Act No. 10071 and
Review (Ad Cautelam) assailing the First Panel's Resolution. the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, the Secretary of Justice has the
9. Former Governor Reyes filed before the CA a Petition for power to create a new panel of prosecutors to reinvestigate a case
Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Injunction assailing the creation of the Second Panel. He argued 17. Respondent argues that the Secretary had no authority to
that the Secretary gravely abused her discretion when she order motu proprio the reinvestigation of the case since Dr.
constituted a new panel and that the evidence to be addressed by Inocencio-Ortega was able to submit her alleged new evidence to
the reinvestigation was neither new nor material to the case. the First Panel when she filed her Motion for Partial
10. The Second Panel issued the Resolution finding probable cause Reconsideration. He argues that all parties had already been given
and recommending the filing of informations on all accused, the opportunity to present their evidence before the First Panel so it
including former Governor Reyes was not necessary to conduct a reinvestigation. Respondent argues
11. RTC, Palawan, Branch 52 subsequently issued warrants of arrest that the Secretary 's discretion to create a new panel of prosecutors
on March 27, 2012. However, the warrants against former was not "unbridled" since the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires
Governor Reyes and his brother were ineffective since the two that there be compelling circumstances for her to be able to
 designate another prosecutor to conduct the reinvestigation. of probable cause in any case. Indeed, in Bautista v. Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court has held that a preliminary
investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding.
ISSUE:
5. There may be some decisions of the Court that have characterized
1. Whether the issuance of Department Order No. 710 was an
the public prosecutor's power to conduct a preliminary
executive function beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari or
investigation as quasi-judicial in nature. Still, this characterization
prohibition;
is true only to the extent that the public prosecutor, like a quasi-
2. Whether, under the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, the Secretary of
judicial body, is an officer of the executive department exercising
Justice may, even without a pending petition for review, motu
powers akin to those of a court of law.
proprio order the conduct of a reinvestigation; and
6. A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is directed against "the
3. Whether this Petition for Certiorari has already been rendered
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person,
moot by the filing of the information in court, pursuant to Crespo
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
v. Mogul.
functions." The Department of Justice is not a court of law and its
officers do not perform quasi-judicial functions. The Secretary of
RATIO: Justice's review of the resolutions of prosecutors is also not a
First Issue: ministerial function.
1. The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of 7. However, even when an administrative agency does not
probable cause is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the perform a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function, the
actions of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or reversing the Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial review when
findings of prosecutors may still be subject to judicial review if it there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion. Therefore,
is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed
2. In Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, 56 a petition for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
certiorari, prohibition, and. mandamus was filed.against the jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the
Secretary of Justice's issuance of a department order. The assailed resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for
order directed all prosecutors to forward all cases already filed certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
against Celso de los Angeles of the Legacy Group to the
Secretariat of the Special Panel created by the Department of Second Issue:
Justice.
3. This court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitions for 8. The 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for
certiorari and prohibition are directed only to tribunals that review before the Secretary of Justice can reverse, affirm, or
exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance of the modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor
department order was a purely administrative or executive function or chief state prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice may also order
of the Secretary of Justice. While the Department of Justice may the conduct of a reinvestigation in order to resolve the petition for
perform functions similar to that of a court of law, it is not a quasi- review under Section 11.
judicial agency: 9. Under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, however, the
4. The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Secretary of Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify
Government does not make it a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the chief state
preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial prosecutor even without a pending petition for review.
proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function 10. The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over
when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding prosecutors and it is within her authority to affirm, nullify, reverse,
 or modify the resolutions of her prosecutors. present their evidence."
11. Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the 17. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Secretary of
secretary of justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, Justice issued Department Order No. 710 because she had
exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said reason to believe that the First Panel's refusal to admit the
prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify additional evidence may cause a probable miscarriage of
their rulings. justice to the parties. The Second Panel was created not to
12. Section 39, Chapter 8, Book IV in relation to Section 5, 8, and 9, overturn the findings and recommendations of the First Panel
Chapter 2, Title III of the Code gives the secretary of justice but to make sure that all the evidence, including the evidence
supervision and control over the Office of the Chief Prosecutor and that the First Panel refused to admit, was investigated.
the Provincial and City Prosecution Offices. The scope of his Therefore, the Secretary of Justice did not act in an "arbitrary
power of supervision and control is delineated in Section 38, and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal
paragraph 1, Chapter 7, Book IV of the Code. hostility."
13. In short, the secretary of justice, who has the power of supervision
Third Issue:
and control over prosecuting officers, is the ultimate authority who
decides which of the conflicting theories of the complainants and 18. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega's Petition for Review before the Secretary of
the respondents should be believed. Justice was rendered moot with the issuance by the Second Panel
14. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10071 also gives the Secretary of of the Resolution dated March 12, 2012 and the filing of the
Justice the authority to directly act on any "probable miscarriage Information against respondent before the trial court.
of justice within the jurisdiction of the prosecution staff, regional 19. The filing of the information and the issuance by the trial court of
prosecution office, and the provincial prosecutor or the city the respondent's warrant of arrest has already rendered this Petition
prosecutor." Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice may step in and moot. Once the information is filed in court, the court acquires
order a reinvestigation even without a prior motion or petition from jurisdiction of the case and any motion to dismiss the case or to
a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of justice. determine the accused's guilt or innocence rests within the sound
15. Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion to Re-Open the preliminary discretion of the court.
Investigation before the First Panel in order to admit as evidence 20. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
mobile phone conversations between Edrad and respondent and information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its
argued that these phone conversations tend to prove that dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
respondent was the mastermind of her husband's murder. The First sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
Panel, however, dismissed the Motion on the ground that it was direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
filed out of time. In the same Resolution, the First Panel denied Dr. while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on
Inocencio-Ortega's Motion for Partial Reconsideration on the the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do
ground that "the evidence on record does not suffice to establish with the case before it. · The determination of the case is within its
probable cause." It was then that the Secretary of Justice issued exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the
Department Order No. 710. case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has
16. In her reply-letter dated September 29, 2011 to respondent's the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is
counsel, the Secretary of Justice further explained that: The order done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the
to reinvestigate was dictated by substantial justice and our desire to motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the
have a comprehensive investigation. We do not want any stone Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
unturned, or any evidence overlooked. As stated in D.O. No. 710, 21. Thus, it would be ill-advised for the Secretary of Justice to proceed
we want to give "both parties all the reasonable opportunity to with resolving respondent's Petition for Review pending before
 her. It would be more prudent to refrain from entertaining the
Petition considering that the trial court already issued a warrant of
arrest against respondent.96 The issuance of the warrant signifies
that the trial court has made an independent determination of the
existence of probable cause.
22. Here, the trial court has already determined, independently of any
finding or recommendation by the First Panel or the Second Panel,
that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant of arrest
against respondent. Probable cause has been judicially determined.
Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred to the trial
court. A petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the
preliminary investigation in any other venue has been rendered
moot by the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the conduct of
arraignment.
23. The prudent course of action at this stage would be to proceed to
trial. Respondent, however, is not without remedies. He may still
file any appropriate action before the trial court or question any
alleged irregularity in the preliminary investigation during pre-
trial.