G.R. No. 159747 , April 13, 2004
Gregorio B. Honasan II, petitioner, vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano, and Hon. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, respondents.

FACTS

An affidavit-complaint for coup d’etat was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Senator Gregorio Honasan II and others in connection with the July 27, 2003 Oakwood mutiny. The complaint, based largely on the sworn statement of Major Perfecto Ragil, alleged that Senator Honasan presided over a meeting on June 4, 2003, where he discussed the National Recovery Program (NRP) and presented a plan to overthrow the government through armed revolution. Ragil’s affidavit detailed that Honasan advocated the use of force and violence, conducted a blood compact rite, and issued threats against those who would betray the group. The DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors assumed jurisdiction and commenced a preliminary investigation.
Petitioner Honasan filed a petition, arguing that the DOJ had no jurisdiction to investigate him. He contended that as a public officer with Salary Grade 31 (a Senator), and with the charge being coup d’etat—an offense allegedly committed in relation to his office—the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation vested in the Office of the Ombudsman pursuant to Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) and relevant jurisprudence.

ISSUE

Whether the Department of Justice Panel of Investigating Prosecutors has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation against Senator Gregorio Honasan II for the crime of coup d’etat.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. The legal logic is anchored on the clear provisions of Republic Act No. 6770 and established precedents. Section 15(1) of R.A. 6770 grants the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, which includes offenses committed by public officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, such as a Senator. While coup d’etat under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code is not within the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction, the determinative factor is the official’s salary grade and the allegation that the act was committed in relation to office.
The Court, citing Deloso v. Domingo, held that the phrase “in relation to office” is not limited to acts performed in the exercise of official functions. It encompasses any offense where the accused’s public office is used or where the offense is intimately connected with the discharge of official duties. The allegations in the complaint—that Honasan used his position and influence as a Senator to recruit and orchestrate a plot to overthrow the government—sufficiently pleaded that the crime was committed in relation to his office. Consequently, jurisdiction properly lies with the Ombudsman. The DOJ Panel was ordered to cease its investigation and refer the case to the Ombudsman.