ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 20 2004 .

G.R. No. 159747 (Gregorio B. Honasan II vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano, and Hon. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo.)

This refers to the (1) Urgent Clarification and Motion of our Resolution dated June 15, 2004 denying petitioner's motion to cite respondent Panel in contempt of court and the (2) Motion for Reconsideration as well as respondent DOJ Panel's comment thereto.

We find that the motion for reconsideration was actually filed by registered mail on May 7, 2004 and therefore within the reglementary period of filing the same. Thus, the portion of our Resolution dated June 15, 2004 declaring our decision final and executory is set aside.

However, a study of petitioner's motion for reconsideration shows that the arguments raised therein were already considered in arriving at our decision sought to be reconsidered and we find no cogent reason to reverse our earlier findings that respondent DOJ Panel has concurrent jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on the charge of coup d'etat filed against petitioner.

Petitioner posits the view that we should not have refrained from ruling on the issue of whether or not the charge against petitioner is committed in relation to his office. We are not persuaded. The resolution of such issue should only be resolved after a hearing has been conducted by respondent Panel and petitioner has already presented his evidence to show that the crime charged was committed in relation to his office. We reiterate that we resolved not to dwell on said issue so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation being conducted by the DOJ Panel as to the questions (1) whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the filing of the information against the petitioner and (2) to which court should the information be filed considering the presence of the other respondents in the subject complaint.

Anent petitioner's allegations of marked bias and prejudice of the respondent DOJ Panel because of the utterances made by the President and other top officials of her administration prejudging his guilt, the Court finds the same to be lacking in factual foundation. The DOJ Panel is composed of lawyers whose sworn duty is to investigate the commission and prosecution of criminal cases and who are expected to fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice with fairness. Whatever remarks made in connection with the charge do not by itself prove that it would influence the minds of the members of the Panel on what their judgment would be after the whole evidence of petitioner's case shall have been examined and evaluated by them. Allegation of bias is not enough absent any viable proof thereof since it is not for this Court to assume in advance that the DOJ Panel would fail to discharge its manifest duty in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. We have had occasion to rule in a criminal case that a charge made before trial that a party will not be given a fair, impartial and just hearing is premature.1 Prejudice is not to be presumed especially if weighed against a judge's legal obligation under his oath to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.2 We likewise find unpersuasive petitioner's claim of alleged prejudicial acts committed by respondent DOJ Panel in the initial stages of the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

WHEREFORE, acting on the motion for clarification, our Resolution dated June 15, 2004 is hereby amended only to the effect that petitioner's motion for reconsideration is timely filed. However, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. (Same voting)

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court