ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 129359. June 23, 1999]

FELIMON C. LAGMAN vs. HON TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23, 1999.

G.R. No. 129359 (Felimon C. Lagman vs. Hon. Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al.)

Linked to the killing of Dr. Rey dela Cruz who allegedly engaged in prostitution and white slavery, petitioner and other alleged members of the Alex Boncayao Brigade were the subject of a letter referral of respondent Presidential Task Force on Intelligence and Counterintelligence (PTFIC) for prosecution. Thereafter, respondent Secretary formed a panel composed of the two respondent prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct the investigation. Said prosecutors required petitioner to appear at the scheduled hearing, during which, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which was later denied including his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Defendants were directed to submit their counter-affidavit. Petitioner questioned the denial before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari (docketed as G.R. No. 128742) but the same was dismissed. Back in the DOJ, petitioner sought the dissolution of the panel of national prosecutors claiming that they have n authority to conduct the investigation since it should be the provincial prosecutors who should handle the case. At the same time, he sought the dismissal of the case insisting that PTFIC has no authority to file the complaint against a civilian. Unsuccessful, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

The petition bears no merit. Although this Court's jurisdiction over actions for certiorari is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (Morales v. CA, 283 SCRA 211), yet petitioner in immediately resorting to this Court failed to observe the hierarchy of courts over the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition. Even assuming arguendo that the instant petition is cognizable by this Court the extraordinary writs sought by petitioner will not issue as there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents. The national prosecutors herein are among those empowered to conduct a preliminary investigation (Section 2, Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) and their scope of authority is not only limited to specific provinces or regions but is national in character. Moreover, the fact that it was respondents PTFIC which filed the letter-referral does not mean that a complaint was not filed by the offended parties. This is not fatal considering that the affidavits of the offended parties were attached thereto. Besides, there is nothing in the rules which renders a complaint insufficient if it is not filed by the offended party (See Section 6, Rule 110, revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). In addition, there is as yet no action filed in court, and until this stage the case is still pending for preliminary investigation.

ACCORDINGLY, finding no grave abuse of discretion, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE