GR 165276; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165276 ; November 25, 2009
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL B. GAITE, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, the foster mother of her grandniece Maria Mercedes Vistan, filed a kidnapping complaint against the child’s half-brother, respondent Michael Vistan, after he induced the minor to leave petitioner’s home. Subsequently, petitioner filed a criminal complaint against Michael Vistan for violation of the Child Abuse Act ( R.A. No. 7610 ) and for obstruction of justice under P.D. No. 1829. The investigating prosecutor recommended upholding the R.A. 7610 charge but for only one count, and dismissed the P.D. 1829 charge. The Provincial Prosecutor, however, denied the recommendation to indict for R.A. 7610 and approved the dismissal of the P.D. 1829 charge.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to elevate the matter via a Petition for Review to the Secretary of Justice, which was also denied. She then filed a Petition for Review before the Office of the President. The Office of the President dismissed the petition, citing Memorandum Circular No. 58, which bars appeals to it from resolutions of the Secretary of Justice in criminal cases, except those involving offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the President correctly dismissed the petition for review based on Memorandum Circular No. 58, thereby declining to exercise appellate jurisdiction over the Secretary of Justice’s resolution in a preliminary investigation.
RULING
Yes, the Office of the President acted correctly. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, upholding the constitutionality and validity of Memorandum Circular No. 58. The legal logic rests on the principle of the President’s control over the executive department. Under the Revised Administrative Code, the Department of Justice is under the control and supervision of the President. The power of control includes the authority to alter, modify, or nullify the subordinate’s actions. Memorandum Circular No. 58 is a valid exercise of this presidential prerogative to delimit the reviewable actions of the Secretary of Justice.
The Circular rationally limits review by the Office of the President to cases where the offense was committed by a public officer in relation to office, recognizing the President’s distinct constitutional duty to ensure that public officials perform their duties faithfully. For all other criminal cases, the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is final, subject only to the court’s jurisdiction once an information is filed or to the extraordinary writ of certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion. This policy prevents the undue protraction of the preliminary investigation process. Since the case against Michael Vistan involves a private individual and not a public officer, it falls outside the exception in Memorandum Circular No. 58. Therefore, the Office of the President correctly refused to exercise appellate jurisdiction.