17 DOJ v. Liwag

October 1, 2017 | Author: Mc Nierra | Category: Prosecutor, Complaint, Crimes, Crime & Justice, Politics
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Case digest...

Description

17 DOJ v. Liwag Facts: Mary Ong alleges that she was a former undercover agent of the Presidential AntiOrganized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group Jan. 8, 2001 - She filed before the OMB a complaint against PNP General Panfilo M. Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking officials of the PNP, and several private individuals Her complaint-affidavit gave rise to separate cases involving different offenses imputed to respondents Lacson and Aquino including: 1. Kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao, Zeng Kang Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong; 2. Murder of Wong Kam Chong; and 3. Kidnapping for ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming May 7, 2001 - a panel of prosecutors from the DOJ sent a subpoena to Lacson et al May 18, 2001 - Lacson and Aquino sent a letter saying the DOJ should dismiss the complaint because the OMB has a similar complaint with the same facts May 28, 2001 - DOJ denied dismissal Lacson and Aquino filed in the RTC a motion for prohibition, insisting the DOJ does not have jurisdiction Judge Liwag issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the DOJ from conducting a preliminary investigation DOJ et al appealed to the SC Issues: W.O.N. the DOJ can concurrently investigate a case wherein the OMB has an existing complaint before it No - the pendency of the case before the OMB is one of primary jurisdiction to investigate 1987 Admin Code governing the DOJ states: Section 1. Declaration of policy. It is the declared policy of the State to provide the government with a principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system; Section 3. Powers and Functions. To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following powers and functions: Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system; PD 1275 states: Section 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary of Justice. There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to

be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscals Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws. OMB act (RA 6640) states: Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties: Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at anystage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases; Art. 11, Sec. 13 of the Constitution vests the OMB with plenary investigative powers and fiscal autonomy They are granted great leeway in investigating and prosecuting offenses Prosecution under the OMB has preference over other bodies RA 6770 gives them primary jurisdiction in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and authorizes them to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency, the investigation of such cases The DOJ has general jurisdiction, it cannot diminish the primary jurisdiction of the OMB This is the first case wherein the first complaint was filed with the OMB before the DOJ The subsequent assumption of the DOJ would not promote an orderly administration of Justice Defendants would not know where their recourse would be (DOJ or OMB) There is a risk of conflicting resolutions regarding guilt Two investigations would lead to unnecessary expenditure of government funds Petition dismissed, OMB to have jurisdiction for the preliminary investigation

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF