Santos-Concio vs. Department of Justice

A preliminary investigation may validly proceed on the basis of affidavits of competent persons even without a sworn complaint-affidavit from the law enforcer as nominal complainant, and the DOJ may conduct both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation in the same case through separate panels without violating due process, provided there is no showing of actual bias or prejudgment.

Petitioners were executives and staff of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), the broadcaster of "Wowowee," a noontime game show. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), through then Secretary Angelo Reyes, created an inter-agency fact-finding team to investigate the circumstances surrounding the February 4, 2006 stampede at the Philsports Arena (formerly Ultra) in Pasig City. The DILG submitted its report to the DOJ on February 7, 2006, which led to the issuance of Department Order No. 90 constituting an Evaluating Panel and subsequently Department Order No. 165 constituting an Investigating Panel.

In the days leading to February 4, 2006, people gathered in throngs at the Philsports Arena (formerly Ultra) in Pasig City, the publicized site of the first anniversary episode of "Wowowee," a noontime game show aired by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. Hundreds queued for days and nights near the venue to secure tickets for the show. On the early morning of February 4, 2006, thousands more swarmed to the venue. Hours before the show and minutes after people were allowed entry through two entry points at six o'clock in the morning, the crowd along Capt. Javier Street jostled to get close to the pedestrian gate. The mad rush triggered a surge that led others to stumble and get trampled upon, claiming 71 lives, 69 of whom were women, and leaving hundreds wounded, prompting the cancellation of the show's episode.

The DILG, through then Secretary Angelo Reyes, created an inter-agency fact-finding team to investigate the circumstances surrounding the stampede. The team submitted its report to the DOJ on February 7, 2006. By Department Order No. 90 of February 8, 2006, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez constituted an Evaluating Panel to evaluate the DILG Report and determine whether there was sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The Evaluating Panel submitted a February 20, 2006 Report concurring with the DILG Report but concluding that there was no sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation, citing: (a) no formal complaints had been filed by victims or their relatives; (b) no documents were submitted to prove the deaths and injuries; (c) the Fact-Finding Report did not indicate the names of the persons involved and their specific participation; and (d) most victims did not mention the names of the persons they alleged to be responsible.

The NBI-NCR, acting on the Evaluating Panel's referral of the case for further investigation, submitted an investigation report by a March 8, 2006 transmittal letter recommending the conduct of preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against petitioners and seven others. Acting on the NBI-NCR's recommendation, Gonzalez issued Department Order No. 165 of March 8, 2006, designating a panel of state prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation. The following day, the Investigating Panel issued subpoenas directing the respondents to appear at the preliminary investigation set on March 20 and 27, 2006.

At the initial preliminary investigation, petitioners sought clarification and orally moved for the inhibition, disqualification or desistance of the Investigating Panel. The Investigating Panel did not formally resolve the motion as petitioners manifested their reservation to file an appropriate motion on the next hearing. On March 23, 2006, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order on March 27, 2006. In the meantime, the Investigating Panel, by Resolution of October 9, 2006, found probable cause to indict petitioners for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries, and recommended the conduct of a separate preliminary investigation against certain public officials. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the October 9, 2006 Resolution is pending resolution.

• Prejudgment and Bias: Petitioners argued that respondents had already prejudged the case, as shown by the public declarations of the DOJ Secretary and the Chief Executive, and had therefore lost their impartiality to conduct the preliminary investigation.
• Indecent Haste: Petitioners argued that respondents had prejudged the case as shown by the indecent haste by which the proceedings were conducted, citing the conduct of the criminal investigation within 24 working days and the issuance of subpoenas immediately following the creation of the Investigating Panel.
• Lack of Oath: Petitioners argued that the alleged complaint-affidavits filed against them were not under oath, pointing out that the NBI-NCR Report, which they adverted to as the complaint-affidavit, was not sworn to by the NBI-NCR as the purported complainant.
• Insufficient Allegations: Petitioners argued that the supposed complaint-affidavits failed to state the acts or omissions constituting the crime, there being no statement of specific and individual acts or omissions constituting reckless imprudence.
• Dual Role of DOJ: Petitioners argued that although respondents may have the power to conduct criminal investigation or preliminary investigation, respondents do not have the power to conduct both in the same case, invoking Cojuangco, Jr. vs. PCGG.

• Scope of Authority: Respondents maintained that the Department Orders were issued within the scope of authority of the DOJ Secretary pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987 bestowing general investigatory powers upon the DOJ.
• Nature of Statements: Respondents maintained that the statements of Gonzalez and the President merely indicated that the incident is of such nature and magnitude as to warrant a natural inference that it would not have happened in the ordinary course of things and that any reasonable mind would conclude that there is a causal connection between the show's preparations and the resultant deaths and injuries.
• Sufficiency of Complaint: Respondents argued that the affidavits attached to the NBI-NCR Report, not the transmittal letter, were intended to initiate the preliminary investigation, and that Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court was substantially complied with.

• Investigatory Power of the DOJ: Whether the DOJ may conduct both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation in the same case through separate panels without violating due process.
• Oath Requirement: Whether the preliminary investigation was fatally defective for lack of a sworn complaint-affidavit from the NBI-NCR as the purported complainant.
• Sufficiency of Allegations: Whether the complaint-affidavits failed to state the acts or omissions constituting the crime, thereby rendering the preliminary investigation invalid.
• Bias and Prejudgment: Whether the Investigating Panel lost its impartiality to conduct the preliminary investigation due to the public declarations of the DOJ Secretary and the President, and the alleged indecent haste of the proceedings.

• Investigatory Power of the DOJ: No. The DOJ may conduct both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation in the same case through separate panels. The measures taken by the Evaluating Panel did not partake of a criminal investigation, and it was the NBI, a constituent unit of the DOJ, which conducted the criminal investigation.
• Oath Requirement: No. A preliminary investigation can validly proceed on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the referral document having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court was substantially complied with.
• Sufficiency of Allegations: No. A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation is not required to exhibit the attending structure of a "complaint or information" laid down in Rule 110. Claims of vague allegations or insufficient imputations are matters that can be properly raised in counter-affidavits.
• Bias and Prejudgment: No. Speed in the conduct of proceedings cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. The presumption of regularity includes the public officer's official actuations in all phases of work, and petitioners failed to present contradictory evidence other than a mere tallying of days or numerical calculation.

• Investigatory Power of the DOJ: The Court distinguished Cojuangco, Jr. vs. PCGG from the present case. In Cojuangco, the PCGG was prohibited from conducting a preliminary investigation because it had earlier found a prima facie case — basis of its issuance of sequestration/freeze orders and the filing of an ill-gotten wealth case involving the same transactions. In the present case, the measures taken by the Evaluating Panel did not partake of a criminal investigation, they having been done in aid of evaluation in order to relate the incidents to their proper context. Evaluation for purposes of determining whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation entails not only reading the report or documents in isolation, but also deems to include resorting to reasonably necessary means such as ocular inspection and physical evidence examination. Had the Evaluating Panel carried out measures partaking of a criminal investigation, it would have gathered the documents that it enumerated as lacking. The Evaluating Panel was dissolved functus oficio upon rendering its report. It was the NBI, a constituent unit of the DOJ, which conducted the criminal investigation. Moreover, the Evaluating Panel found no sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation, so prejudgment may not be attributed "vicariously" to the rest of the state prosecutors.

• Oath Requirement: The Court held that a complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. Under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the complaint shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. The complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of the complaint. Citing Soriano vs. Casanova, the Court held that since the affidavits, not the letters transmitting them, were intended to initiate the preliminary investigation, Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court was substantially complied with. Citing Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, the Court held that a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not be filed by the offended party, and may be filed by any competent person. The Court found that there was no doubt about the existence of affidavits, as the appellate court found that "certain complaint-affidavits were already filed by some of the victims," a factual finding to which the Court generally defers.

• Sufficiency of Allegations: The Court held that a complaint for purposes of conducting preliminary investigation is not required to exhibit the attending structure of a "complaint or information" laid down in Rule 110. The investigating fiscal has discretion to determine the specificity and adequacy of averments of the offense charged. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance, or proceed with the investigation if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form. The procedural device of a bill of particulars has reference to informations or criminal complaints filed in a competent court upon which the accused are arraigned and required to plead, and strictly speaking has no application to complaints initiating a preliminary investigation which cannot result in any finding of guilt, but only of probable cause. Petitioners' claims of vague allegations or insufficient imputations are matters that can be properly raised in their counter-affidavits to negate or belie the existence of probable cause.

• Bias and Prejudgment: The Court held that speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. The presumption of regularity includes the public officer's official actuations in all phases of work. Consistent with such presumption, it was incumbent upon petitioners to present contradictory evidence other than a mere tallying of days or numerical calculation. The swift completion of the Investigating Panel's initial task cannot be relegated as shoddy or shady without discounting the presumably regular performance of not just one but five state prosecutors. There was no proof showing that Gonzalez exerted undue pressure on his subordinates to tailor their decision with his public declarations. The Evaluating Panel in fact even found no sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation, and one member of the Investigating Panel even dissented to its October 9, 2006 Resolution. To follow petitioners' theory of institutional bias would logically mean that even the NBI had prejudged the case since it is a constituent agency of the DOJ. Citing Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court noted that ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with the Court, and any resolution on the existence or lack of probable cause is made to depend on the records of the preliminary investigation. At the incipient stage when the petition was filed, records were wanting if not nil since the Investigating Panel had not yet resolved any matter brought before it, save for the issuance of subpoenas.

• Distinction between criminal investigation and preliminary investigation — A criminal investigation is the gathering of evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed and who may be responsible, while a preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether there is probable cause to file an information in court. The Court applied this distinction in holding that the Evaluating Panel's measures were done in aid of evaluation, not criminal investigation, and that the NBI-NCR conducted the criminal investigation while the Investigating Panel conducted the preliminary investigation.

• Substantial compliance with Rule 112, Section 3(a) — The complaint for preliminary investigation need not be entirely the affidavit of the complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of the complaint. A preliminary investigation can validly proceed on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the referral document having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the affidavits attached to the NBI-NCR Report substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 112.

• Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties — Public officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. The Court applied this presumption in holding that the swift completion of the Investigating Panel's initial task cannot be relegated as shoddy or shady without discounting the presumably regular performance of the state prosecutors, and that petitioners failed to present contradictory evidence other than a mere tallying of days or numerical calculation.

• Doctrine of institutional bias — The Court rejected the theory that the bias of the DOJ Secretary is the bias of the entire DOJ, holding that to follow such theory would logically mean that even the NBI had prejudged the case since it is a constituent agency of the DOJ, and if extended to the President's declaration, there would be no more arm of the government credible enough to conduct a criminal investigation and a preliminary investigation.

• "A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. Confusion apparently springs because two complementary procedures adopt the usage of the same word, for lack of a better or alternative term, to refer essentially to a written charge." — This passage articulates the distinction between complaints in preliminary investigation and criminal prosecution, which is central to the Court's ruling on the sufficiency of the complaint-affidavits.

• "A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the referral document, like the NBI-NCR Report, having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. To require otherwise is a needless exercise." — This passage states the controlling rule on the oath requirement for complaints in preliminary investigation, resolving the petitioners' argument that the NBI-NCR Report was not under oath.

• "Speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one's prompt dispatch may be another's undue haste. The orderly administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant consideration, with particular regard of the circumstances peculiar to each case." — This passage addresses the petitioners' claim of bias based on the alleged indecent haste of the proceedings, establishing that speed alone does not indicate prejudgment.

• "To follow petitioner's theory of institutional bias would logically mean that even the NBI had prejudged the case in conducting a criminal investigation since it is a constituent agency of the DOJ. And if the theory is extended to the President's declaration, there would be no more arm of the government credible enough to conduct a criminal investigation and a preliminary investigation." — This passage rejects the theory of institutional bias, which was the core of petitioners' argument that the DOJ Secretary's public declarations tainted the entire DOJ.

• Cojuangco, Jr. vs. PCGG, G.R. Nos. 92319-20, October 2, 1990, 190 SCRA 226 — Distinguished from the present case. In Cojuangco, the PCGG was prohibited from conducting a preliminary investigation because it had earlier found a prima facie case, whereas in the present case, the Evaluating Panel found no sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

• Soriano vs. Casanova, G.R. No. 163400, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 431 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that since the affidavits, not the letters transmitting them, were intended to initiate the preliminary investigation, Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court was substantially complied with.

• Ebarle vs. Sucaldito — Cited through Soriano vs. Casanova for the rule that a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not be filed by the offended party, and may be filed by any competent person.

• Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 324 Phil. 568 (1996) — Cited for the rule that ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with the Court, and its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.

• Ladlad vs. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, June 1, 2007, 523 SCRA 318 — Distinguished. The Court noted that in Ladlad, a public declaration by Gonzalez was found to evince a determination to file the Information even in the absence of probable cause, but in the present case, any resolution on the issue of prejudgment is made to depend on the records of the preliminary investigation, which were wanting at the incipient stage.

• Cruz vs. Salva, 105 Phil. 1151 (1959) — Cited in the final word of the decision, where the Court censured a fiscal for inexcusably allowing undue publicity in the conduct of preliminary investigation.

• Section 3(a), Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — The provision requires that the complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. The Court applied this provision in holding that the complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the complainant, and that the affidavits attached to the NBI-NCR Report substantially complied with the requirement.

• Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court — The provision on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court applied this presumption in rejecting petitioners' claim of bias based on the alleged indecent haste of the proceedings.

• Section 1, Article 365, Revised Penal Code — The provision on reckless imprudence, which was the offense charged against petitioners. The Court noted that the preliminary investigation was accorded to petitioners even when it was not required since the case involves an alleged offense where the penalty prescribed by law is below Four Years, Two Months and One Day.

• Executive Order No. 292, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 1, Sections 1, 3, and 4, Administrative Code of 1987 — The provision bestowing general investigatory powers upon the DOJ, declaring the policy to administer the criminal justice system consisting in the investigation of crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system. The Court applied this provision in upholding the validity of the Department Orders.

• Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
• Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga
• Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

N/A — The decision does not mention any dissenting opinion from the members of the Second Division. However, the decision notes that one member of the Investigating Panel, State Prosecutor Peter Ong, dissented to the October 9, 2006 Resolution finding probable cause.