G.R. No. 240056 , October 12, 2020
Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting y Simborio), Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon-Sugbuanon Tribe, Petitioner, vs. PO3 Arvin R. Sandagan, PO3 Estelito R. Avelino, PO2 Noel P. Guimbaolibot, Hon. Prosecutor III Junery M. Bagunias and Hon. Judge Carlos O. Arguelles, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Abuyog, Leyte, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Datu Malingin, a tribal chieftain, was charged with six counts of rape against a minor before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over him as a member of an Indigenous Cultural Community. He invoked Republic Act No. 8371 (The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997), asserting that disputes involving IPs must first be resolved through customary laws and referred to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The RTC denied his motion, ruling that RA 8371 covers disputes concerning customary law but does not extend to violations of penal laws like rape under the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Mandamus directly with the Supreme Court. He sought to compel the RTC judge and prosecutor to desist from the rape case, arguing they committed grave abuse of discretion by not observing IP rights. He also sought a declaration that the arresting police officers were guilty of Arbitrary Detention. The respondents countered that mandamus was an improper remedy, the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and that penal laws apply universally.

ISSUE

May the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge and prosecutor to desist from the rape case and declare the police officers guilty of Arbitrary Detention?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The dismissal was primarily based on procedural grounds and the substantive inapplicability of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act to the criminal charges.
Procedurally, the petition was fatally defective for non-observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus with lower courts, direct recourse is generally prohibited. Litigants must first file with the appropriate lower court. This doctrine serves as a filtering mechanism, and no compelling circumstances were presented to justify a direct filing. Furthermore, mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to correct errors in the exercise of judicial discretion, such as a ruling on jurisdiction.
Substantively, the Court upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction. The invocation of RA 8371 was insufficient to divest the regular courts of authority over the rape cases. The principle of generality of penal laws means they are binding on all persons within Philippine territory, including members of indigenous communities. Crimes like rape, defined and penalized under national law, are not among the “claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs” intended to be settled by customary law under the NCIP’s jurisdiction. To rule otherwise would grant criminal immunity, which is not sanctioned by law. The claim of Arbitrary Detention was also untenable as it was not properly raised and substantiated in the appropriate proceeding.