GR 171542; (April, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171542 ; April 6, 2011
ANGELITO P. MAGNO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MICHAEL MONSOD, ESTHER LUZ MAE GREGORIO, GIAN CARLO CAJOLES, NENETTE CASTILLON, DONATO ENABE and ALFIE FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information for multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder against several accused, including petitioner Angelito P. Magno, who were public officers of the National Bureau of Investigation. During arraignment, Magno objected to the appearance of Atty. Adelino B. Sitoy as a private prosecutor acting for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City ruled that the Ombudsman is the proper and authorized entity to prosecute the case to the exclusion of any other entity/person not authorized under Republic Act No. 6770 , thereby precluding Atty. Sitoy from acting as private prosecutor. The respondents, through the Ombudsman for the Visayas and Atty. Sitoy, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its amended decision, ruled that the private prosecutor may appear to intervene in the prosecution of the offense in collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman. Magno filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari challenging the RTC order, or whether such jurisdiction lies with the Sandiganbayan.
2. Whether a private prosecutor can be allowed to intervene and prosecute the case for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman under Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6770 .
RULING
1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC’s order. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Since the criminal case involved public officers charged with offenses in relation to their office, the Sandiganbayan properly had jurisdiction. The CA therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari.
2. On the Intervention of a Private Prosecutor: The Supreme Court, having resolved the jurisdictional issue, deemed it unnecessary to rule on the substantive issue regarding the propriety of the private prosecutor’s intervention under Section 31 of R.A. No. 6770 . The Court granted the petition and set aside the amended decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals for having been issued without jurisdiction. The case was referred to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate action.