G.R. No. 221139. March 20, 2019
HA DATU TAWAHIG (RODERICK D. SUMATRA), TRIBAL CHIEFTAIN, HIGAONON TRIBE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR I LINETH LAPINID, CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR II FERNANDO GUBALANE, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ERNESTO NARIDO, JR., CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR NICOLAS SELLON, AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 12, CEBU CITY ESTELA ALMA SINGCO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Roderick D. Sumatra, a tribal chieftain of the Higaonon tribe, was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. Following his arrest, he filed motions to quash the information, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over his person. He contended that as a member of an indigenous cultural community, the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and that customary laws should apply. He relied on a resolution from a “Dadantulan Tribal Court” which had absolved him of liability. The RTC denied his motions, ruling that the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) did not apply as the case did not involve ancestral domain or internal community rights requiring customary law. Subsequently, a petition for mandamus was filed directly with the Supreme Court to compel the trial court and prosecutors to honor the tribal court resolution and desist from the criminal prosecution.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the respondents to recognize the tribal court resolution and stop the criminal prosecution for rape based on the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the IPRA was never intended to deprive regular courts of jurisdiction over criminal offenses. The legal logic is clear: while the IPRA recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples and their customary laws, its jurisdictional grant to the NCIP under Section 66 is limited to specific disputes involving rights under the law, such as those concerning ancestral domains and community rights, and only when the parties belong to the same indigenous group. A criminal charge for rape, a public crime prosecuted by the State, does not constitute a “dispute” between private parties over which customary law holds sway. The State’s power to prosecute crimes is an inherent sovereign function aimed at maintaining public order and safety. The alleged victim, not being a member of the Higaonon tribe, further removes the case from the ambit of NCIP’s jurisdiction over intra-tribal matters. Therefore, the regular courts retain full jurisdiction. The tribal court’s resolution cannot supplant the criminal justice system or bar a prosecution for a crime defined and penalized under national law. The petition also violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as it sought an extraordinary writ from the Supreme Court without first seeking relief from lower courts. Mandamus does not lie to control prosecutorial discretion or judicial discretion in a criminal proceeding absent a clear showing of grave abuse.