Gregorio Honasan II

v.
The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (Leo Dacera, Susan F.
Dacanay, Edna A. Valenzuela and Sebastian F. Caponong, Jr.), CIDG-PNP- P/Director Eduardo
Matillano, and Hon. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo
G.R. No. 159747 April 13, 2004

Facts:
● An affidavit-complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by respondent
CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano finding that a crime of coup d'etat was committed
by military personnel who occupied Oakwood on July 27, 2003, implicating Senator
Gregorio Honasan II.
● The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ Panel) sent a
subpoena to petitioner for preliminary investigation.
● Petitioner 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; and
praying that the proceedings be suspended until final resolution of his motion.
● Arguments of petitioner:
- it is the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
investigation under paragraph (1), Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which confers
upon the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own, or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
- respondent DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized under OMB-DOJ Joint Circular
No. 95-001 to conduct the preliminary investigation involving Honasan.
● Arguments of respondent DOJ Panel:
- the DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on petitioner pursuant to
Section 3, Chapter I, Title III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to P.D.
No. 1275, as amended by P.D. No. 1513.
 - petitioner is charged with a crime that is not directly nor intimately related to his public
office as a Senator. The factual allegations in the complaint and the supporting affidavits are bereft
of the requisite nexus between petitioner's office and the acts complained of.
● Arguments of respondent Ombudsman:
- the DOJ Panel has full authority and jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over
the petitioner for the reason that the crime of coup d'etat under Article No. 134-A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) may fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only if the same is
committed "in relation to office" of petitioner, pursuant to Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by
R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249.
- the DOJ's concurrent authority with the OMB to conduct preliminary investigation of cases
involving public officials has been recognized in Sanchez vs. Demetriou (227 SCRA 627 [1993]) and
incorporated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Issue:
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.

Held:
YES.
● 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.
● The authority of respondent ​DOJ Panel is based not on OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 but on
the provisions of the ​1987 Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV,
governing the DOJ, which provides:
Sec. 1. Declaration of policy - It is the declared policy of the State to provide the government with a
principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer the
criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the
investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system; …
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions - To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following
powers and functions:
…
(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation
and correction system;
and ​Section 1 of P.D. 1275,​ effective April 11, 1978, to wit:
SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary of
Justice. – There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution Service under the supervision
and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the
Secretary of Justice and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City
Fiscal's Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the
investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws.
● Paragraph (1) of Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution,​ viz:
SEC. 13. The ​Office of the Ombudsman​ shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
It does not exclude other government agencies tasked by law to investigate and
prosecute cases involving public officials. If it were the intention of the framers of the 1987
Constitution, they would have expressly declared the exclusive conferment of the power to the
Ombudsman.
● Accordingly, Congress enacted ​R.A. 6770​, otherwise known as ​"The Ombudsman Act of
1989." Section 15 ​thereof provides:
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient. I​ t has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.
● For purposes of investigation and prosecution, ​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, such cases.
 ● The prosecution of cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct
exclusive control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases cognizable by
the regular Courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in
Ombudsman cases in the sense defined above.
● The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and
other investigative agencies of the government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by
regular courts.
● The power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or
employees is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies
of the government such as the provincial, city and state prosecutors has long been settled
in several decisions of the Court.
● Interpreting the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of the
Ombudsman Act, the Court held in said case:
Under Section 15 (1) of Republic Act No. 6770 aforecited, ​the Ombudsman has primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan so that it may take over at any stage
from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. ​The
authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is not
exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the government. Such
investigatory agencies referred to include the PCGG and the provincial and city prosecutors and
their assistants, the state prosecutors and the judges of the municipal trial courts and municipal
circuit trial court.
● The provision of the law has opened up the authority to conduct preliminary investigation
of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan to all investigatory agencies of the government
duly authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation under ​Section 2, Rule 112 of the
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the only qualification that the Ombudsman may
take over at any stage of such investigation in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction..
● The latest law on the ​Sandiganbayan​, ​Sec. 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1861 ​reads as follows:
"SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 is hereby amended to read as follows:
'SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
'(a) ​Exclusive original jurisdiction​ in all cases involving:
...
​ ther offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their
(2) O
office,​ including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporation, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher that prision correccional
or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies
mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional
or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court."
● A perusal of the aforecited law shows that two requirements must concur under Sec. 4 (a)
(2) for an offense to fall under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, namely: ​the offense
committed by the public officer must be in relation to his office and ​the penalty
prescribed be higher then prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a
fine of P6,000.00
● R.A. No. 8249 which amended Section 4, paragraph (b) of the Sandiganbayan Law (P.D.
1861) likewise provides that for other offenses, aside from those enumerated under
paragraphs (a) and (c), to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, they
must have been committed by public officers or employees in relation to their office.
● In summation, 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.
● Note: The question whether or not the offense allegedly committed by petitioner is one of
those enumerated in the Sandiganbayan Law that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan will not be resolved in the present petition so as not to pre-empt the result
of the investigation being conducted by the DOJ Panel as to the questions whether or not
probable cause exists to warrant the filing of the information against the petitioner; and to
which court should the information be filed considering the presence of other respondents
in the subject complaint.