G.R. No. 149311 ; February 11, 2005
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. HERMOGENES R. LIWAG, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Mary Ong, a former undercover agent, filed a complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman against PNP General Panfilo Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray Aquino, and others for various offenses. The Ombudsman docketed the cases and required counter-affidavits. Subsequently, Ong and other witnesses executed sworn statements before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) alleging the same facts. Based on these, the NBI recommended to the Department of Justice (DOJ) the investigation of Lacson and Aquino for kidnapping and murder. The DOJ panel then issued a subpoena for a preliminary investigation.
Lacson and Aquino moved for the dismissal of the DOJ proceedings, arguing that the Ombudsman had primary jurisdiction over the cases involving them as public officials. The DOJ denied the motion. Lacson and Aquino then filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted the petition and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, enjoining the DOJ from conducting its preliminary investigation. The DOJ and NBI filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the RTC’s Order and Writ.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the Department of Justice from conducting a preliminary investigation against respondents Lacson and Aquino.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Court clarified the concurrent jurisdiction between the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies. While the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to investigate any act or omission of any public official, this power is not exclusive. Other agencies like the DOJ can conduct parallel investigations. However, the rule against multiplicity of proceedings governs to prevent an oppressive scenario. The Court emphasized that once a complaint is filed with the Ombudsman, that office’s jurisdiction to investigate takes precedence. To allow the DOJ to conduct a simultaneous investigation on the same facts, against the same respondents, would promote multiplicity, cause undue hardship to the respondents, risk conflicting resolutions, and entail unnecessary public expenditure. The Ombudsman had already assumed jurisdiction by finding the complaint sufficient and requiring counter-affidavits. Therefore, the DOJ should defer to the Ombudsman’s ongoing proceedings. The RTC correctly issued the injunction to prevent disorderly administration of justice, as the DOJ’s act of proceeding despite the pending Ombudsman case was contrary to the orderly scheme of investigation.