Mina vs. Court of Appeals

Where a criminal complaint is filed outside the National Capital Region and is cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, the resolution of the Regional State Prosecutor resolving the appeal from the Provincial or City Prosecutor is final, and the aggrieved party may forthwith seek judicial relief by petition for certiorari without first appealing to the Secretary of Justice, unless the Secretary of Justice exercises the power of control and supervision over the National Prosecution Service by reviewing, modifying, or reversing that resolution in the interest of justice.

The record does not disclose any antecedent relationship between petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz, on the one hand, and respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc, on the other, beyond the criminal complaint that petitioners subsequently filed against him. The dispute is governed by the appeals framework of the National Prosecution Service, originally laid down in DOJ Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, entitled the "2000 NPS Rule on Appeal," which required that resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutor in cases subject of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation be appealed by verified petition for review to the Secretary of Justice. That procedure was immediately amended by DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A dated July 10, 2000, entitled "Delegation of Authority to Regional State Prosecutors to Resolve Appeals in Certain Cases," and further reinforced by DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14 dated June 18, 2014, entitled "Revised Delegation of Authority on Appealed Cases."

Petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz filed an Affidavit-Complaint dated August 2, 2016 against Rodolfo C. Tandoc for Perjury, as defined and penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan. After the requisite preliminary investigation proceedings, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against Tandoc for lack of probable cause.

Aggrieved, petitioners appealed before the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor located in San Fernando City, La Union. The Regional State Prosecutor affirmed the Provincial Prosecutor's findings that no probable cause existed to indict Tandoc for the crime of Perjury.

Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. In a Resolution dated May 22, 2017, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright on the ground that petitioners availed of a wrong remedy, holding that under Department of Justice Department Circular No. 70-A, petitioners should have first appealed the adverse Regional State Prosecutor ruling to the Secretary of Justice before elevating the matter to the regular courts. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated March 12, 2018, prompting the present petition.

• Finality of the ORSP Ruling: Petitioners maintained that the ruling of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor is already final, and that they therefore correctly elevated the matter to the courts by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

• Propriety of the Remedy: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners' supposed availment of a wrong remedy.

• Propriety of the Remedy: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, because the Regional State Prosecutor's resolution affirming the dismissal of the complaint was issued with finality under DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, as harmonized in Cariaga vs. Sapigao, and the Secretary of Justice did not exercise the power of review.

• Propriety of the Remedy: DOJ Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, the "2000 NPS Rule on Appeal," provided that resolutions of, among others, the Regional State Prosecutor in cases subject of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation shall be appealed by filing a verified petition for review before the Secretary of Justice. That procedure was immediately amended by DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A dated July 10, 2000, which delegated to the Regional State Prosecutors the authority to resolve with finality petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except in the National Capital Region, without prejudice to the Secretary of Justice's power of supervision and control over the entire National Prosecution Service and his authority, in the interest of justice, to review the resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutors in appealed cases. The delegation was strengthened by DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14 dated June 18, 2014, which reiterated that all appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors, except those from the National Capital Region, in cases cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall be by way of petition for review to the concerned province or city, with the Regional Prosecutor resolving the petition with finality, subject to the Secretary of Justice's power to review, modify, or reverse such resolutions pursuant to his power of control and supervision over the National Prosecution Service. In Cariaga vs. Sapigao, the Court harmonized these circulars and held that the prevailing appeals process in the National Prosecution Service depends on two factors: where the complaint was filed, that is, whether in the National Capital Region or in the provinces, and which court has original jurisdiction over the case, that is, whether or not it is cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs. Applying that framework, the records show that petitioners filed their criminal complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, which dismissed it, and that the dismissal was upheld by the Regional State Prosecutor. Since the criminal complaint was filed outside the National Capital Region; since perjury cases are cognizable by the first-level courts because the maximum penalty therefor is imprisonment for less than six years; and since it appears that the Secretary of Justice did not exercise the power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service by reviewing the Regional State Prosecutor's ruling, the affirmance of the Provincial Prosecutor's ruling was with finality. Petitioners had therefore already exhausted their administrative remedies and could go to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition outright, and because that dismissal rested on a mere technicality, the case was remanded to the appellate court for resolution on the merits.

• Finality of Regional State Prosecutor Resolutions under DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A — Under the delegated authority, the Regional State Prosecutor resolves with finality petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs, provided that (a) the case is not filed in the National Capital Region, and (b) the case, should it proceed to the courts, is cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs, which includes not only violations of city or municipal ordinances but also all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties attached thereto. This finality is without prejudice to the Secretary of Justice's authority, pursuant to his power of supervision and control over the entire National Prosecution Service and in the interest of justice, to review the resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutors in appealed cases. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the Regional State Prosecutor's affirmance of the dismissal of the perjury complaint was with finality, the Secretary of Justice not having exercised the power of review.

• The Cariaga vs. Sapigao Framework on NPS Appeals — The prevailing appeals process in the National Prosecution Service with regard to complaints subject of preliminary investigation depends on two factors: where the complaint was filed, that is, whether in the National Capital Region or in the provinces; and which court has original jurisdiction over the case, that is, whether or not it is cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs. The rules are: (a) if the complaint is filed outside the National Capital Region and is cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs, the ruling of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor may be appealed by petition for review before the Regional State Prosecutor, whose ruling shall be with finality; (b) if the complaint is filed outside the National Capital Region and is not cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs, the ruling of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor may be appealed by petition for review before the Secretary of Justice, whose ruling shall be with finality; (c) if the complaint is filed within the National Capital Region and is cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs, the ruling of the Office of the City Prosecutor may be appealed by petition for review before the Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be with finality; (d) if the complaint is filed within the National Capital Region and is not cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, or MCTCs, the ruling of the Office of the City Prosecutor may be appealed by petition for review before the Secretary of Justice, whose ruling shall be with finality; and (e) in instances covered by (a) and (c), the Secretary of Justice may, pursuant to his power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service, review, modify, or reverse the ruling of the Regional State Prosecutor or the Prosecutor General, as the case may be. The Court adopted this framework as the controlling rule and applied it to the present case.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Where the applicable rules vest the Regional State Prosecutor with authority to resolve an appeal with finality and the Secretary of Justice does not exercise the power of review, the administrative remedy is exhausted and the aggrieved party may forthwith resort to judicial remedies. The Court held that because the Regional State Prosecutor's affirmance of the dismissal was with finality, petitioners had already exhausted their administrative remedies and properly went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari filed before it, the dismissal having rested on a mistaken application of the appeals procedure and on a mere technicality, warranting reversal and remand for resolution on the merits.

• "all petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors in eases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except in the National Capital Region, shall be filed with the Regional State Prosecutor concerned who shall resolve such petitions with finality in accordance with the pertinent rules prescribed in the said Department Circular." — This is the operative text of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, quoted in the decision, which supplies the rule of finality on which the entire resolution turns; it is the provision the Court of Appeals misapplied.
• "A reading of the foregoing provisions shows that the prevailing appeals process in the NPS with regard to complaints subject of preliminary investigation would depend on two factors, namely: where the complaint was filed, i.e., whether in the NCR or in the provinces; and which court has original jurisdiction over the case, i.e., whether or not it is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs." — This passage, quoted from Cariaga vs. Sapigao, states the two-factor test the Court adopted as the controlling framework for determining the proper appellate route in the National Prosecution Service.
• "Since (a) the criminal complaint was filed outside of the NCR; (b) perjury cases are cognizable by the first-level courts since the maximum penalty therefor is imprisonment for less than six (6) years; and (c) it appears that the SOJ did not exercise its power of control and supervision over the entire NPS by reviewing the ORSP ruling, the ORSP's affirmance of the OPP ruling was with finality." — This is the Court's application of the framework to the facts, establishing that administrative remedies had been exhausted and that the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the correct remedy.
• "In this light, the Court concludes that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari filed before it by petitioners." — This states the ratio decidendi on the procedural error of the appellate court and explains why the case was remanded rather than resolved outright by the Supreme Court.

• Cariaga vs. Sapigao, G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017, 828 SCRA 436 — Controlling precedent. The Court harmonized DOJ Department Circulars Nos. 70, 70-A, and 018-14 in this case and adopted its resulting four-part framework (with the proviso on the Secretary of Justice's power of review) as the governing rule on the National Prosecution Service appeals process, then applied it to hold that the Regional State Prosecutor's ruling in the present case was final.

• Article 183, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Perjury, the offense charged in petitioners' Affidavit-Complaint against Tandoc. The Court referred to this article to establish that the maximum penalty for perjury is imprisonment for less than six years, which makes the offense cognizable by the first-level courts and thus brings the case within the finality rule of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A.
• Section 32, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended) — Defines the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, which includes not only violations of city or municipal ordinances but also all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties attached thereto. This provision supplies the jurisdictional criterion on which the applicability of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A depends.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 70 (July 3, 2000), "2000 NPS Rule on Appeal" — Governs the appeals process in the National Prosecution Service and originally required that resolutions of, among others, the Regional State Prosecutor in cases subject of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation be appealed by verified petition for review before the Secretary of Justice. It was the rule the Court of Appeals applied, but which the Court held had been amended.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A (July 10, 2000), "Delegation of Authority to Regional State Prosecutors to Resolve Appeals in Certain Cases" — Amended Circular No. 70 by delegating to the Regional State Prosecutors the authority to resolve with finality petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs, except in the National Capital Region, without prejudice to the Secretary of Justice's power of review in the interest of justice. This is the provision on which the Court's ruling of finality rests.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14 (June 18, 2014), "Revised Delegation of Authority on Appealed Cases" — Reinforced the delegation under Circular No. 70-A by providing that appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors, except those from the National Capital Region, in cases cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs shall be by petition for review to the concerned province or city, with the Regional Prosecutor resolving the petition with finality, subject to the Secretary of Justice's power to review, modify, or reverse the same. The Court cited it as strengthening the finality rule applied to petitioners' case.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson); Caguioa; J. Reyes, Jr.; and Hernando.