GR 239521; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239521 January 28, 2019
PRIMO A. MINA, FELIX DE VERA, POMPEYO MAGALI, BERNADETTE AMOR AND PURIFICACION DELA CRUZ, Petitioners vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RODOLFO C. TANDOC, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners filed an Affidavit-Complaint for Perjury against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Pangasinan. After preliminary investigation, the OPP dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) in San Fernando City, La Union, which affirmed the OPP’s dismissal. Unsatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright, ruling that petitioners availed of a wrong remedy. The CA held that under Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 70-A, petitioners should have first appealed the adverse ORSP ruling to the Secretary of Justice before resorting to judicial remedies. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners’ supposed availment of a wrong remedy.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA’s resolutions, and remanded the case for resolution on the merits. The legal logic centers on the proper interpretation of DOJ circulars governing the finality of prosecutorial resolutions.
The Court clarified the hierarchy of appeals under DOJ issuances. Department Circular No. 70-A, dated July 10, 2000, delegates to Regional State Prosecutors the authority to resolve with finality appeals from Provincial or City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by first-level courts (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) and filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR). This finality is subject only to the Secretary of Justice’s discretionary power of supervision and control to review in the interest of justice. This framework was reinforced by the later Department Circular No. 018-14.
Applying these rules to the case: (1) the Perjury complaint was filed in Pangasinan, outside the NCR; (2) Perjury, punishable by imprisonment of less than six years, is cognizable by first-level courts; and (3) there was no showing the Secretary of Justice exercised his supervisory power to review the ORSP’s affirmance. Consequently, the ORSP’s resolution was final. Petitioners had therefore exhausted all required administrative remedies. Their direct recourse to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari was correct. The CA’s dismissal on a technicality constituted grave abuse of discretion.