Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Charo Santos-Concio, et. al. vs Sec of Justice, et. al.

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 175057 January 29, 2008

MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO, MA. SOCORRO V. VIDANES, MARILOU ALMADEN, CIPRIANO LUSPO, MORLY STEWART NUEVA, HAROLD JAMES NUEVA, NORBERT VIDANES, FRANCISCO RIVERA, MEL FELICIANO, and JEAN OWEN ERCIA, petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, as Secretary of the Department of Justice, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS created under Department of Justice Department Order No. 165 dated 08 March 2006, LEO B. DACERA III, as Chairman of the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, and DEANA P. PEREZ, MA. EMILIA L. VICTORIO, EDEN S. WAKAY-VALDES and PETER L. ONG, as Members of the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, the EVALUATING PANEL created under Department of Justice Department Order No. 90 dated 08 February 2006, JOSELITA C. MENDOZA as Chairman of the Evaluating Panel, and MERBA WAGA, RUEL LASALA and ARNOLD ROSALES, as Members of the Evaluating Panel, respondents.


CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Facts:


In the days leading to February 4, 2006, people started to gather 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 (ABS-CBN). With high hopes of winning the bonanza, hundreds queued for days and nights near the venue to assure themselves of securing tickets for the show. Little did they know that in taking a shot at instant fortune, a number of them would pay the ultimate wager and place their lives at stake, all in the name of bagging the prizes in store.

Came the early morning of February 4, 2006 with thousands more swarming to the venue. Hours before the show and minutes after the people were allowed entry through two entry points at six o’clock in the morning, the obstinate crowd along Capt. Javier Street jostled even more just to get close to the lower rate pedestrian gate. The mad rush of the unruly mob generated much force, triggering the horde to surge forward with such momentum that led others to stumble and get trampled upon by the approaching waves of people right after the gate opened.

This fatal stampede claimed 71 lives, 69 of whom were women, and left hundreds wounded which necessitated emergency medical support and prompted the cancellation of the show’s episode.

By Department Order No. 90 of February 8, 2006, respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez (Gonzalez) constituted a Panel (Evaluating Panel) to evaluate the DILG Report and "determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation on the basis of the documents submitted."

Acting on the recommendation of the NBI-NCR, Gonzalez, by Department Order No. 165 of March 8, 2006, designated a panel of state prosecutors (Investigating Panel) to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-291, "NCR-NBI v. Santos-Concio, et al.," and if warranted by the evidence, to file the appropriate information and prosecute the same before the appropriate court. The following day or on March 9, 2006, the Investigating Panel issued subpoenas directing the therein respondents to appear at the preliminary investigation set on March 20 and 27, 2006.

Issues:


a) Whether or not it can be dismissed the petitioners’ petition for certiorari and prohibition that sought to annul respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Order Nos. 90 and 165dated February 8, 2006 and March 8, 2006, respectively;

b) Whether or not to prohibit the DOJ from further conducting a preliminary investigation in what has been dubbed as the "Ultra Stampede" case.

Held:

On the Investigatory Power of the DOJ

In the assailed Decision, the appellate court ruled 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.

Petitioners concede that the DOJ has the power to conduct both criminal investigation and preliminary investigation but not in their case, they invoking Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG. They posit that in Cojuangco, the reshuffling of personnel was not considered by this Court which ruled that the entity which conducted the criminal investigation is disqualified from conducting a preliminary investigation in the same case. They add that the DOJ cannot circumvent the prohibition by simply creating a panel to conduct the first, and another to conduct the second.

In insisting on the arbitrariness of the two Department Orders which, so they claim, paved the way for the DOJ’s dual role, petitioners trace the basis for the formation of the five-prosecutor Investigating Panel to the NBI-NCR Report which was spawned by the supposed criminal investigation of the Evaluating Panel the members of which included two, albeit different, prosecutors. While petitioners do not assail the constitution of the Evaluating Panel, they claim that it did not just evaluate the DILG Report but went further and conducted its own criminal investigation by interviewing witnesses, conducting an ocular inspection, and perusing the evidence.

On the Alleged Defects of the Complaint

On the two succeeding issues, petitioners fault the appellate court’s dismissal of their petition despite, so they claim, respondents’ commission of grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the preliminary investigation given the fatal defects in the supposed complaint.

Petitioners point out that they cannot be compelled to submit their counter-affidavits because the NBI-NCR Report, which they advert to as the complaint-affidavit, was not under oath. While they admit that there were affidavits attached to the NBI-NCR Report, the same, they claim, were not executed by the NBI-NCR as the purported complainant, leaving them as "orphaned" supporting affidavits without a sworn complaint-affidavit to support.

These affidavits, petitioners further point out, nonetheless do not qualify as a complaint within the scope of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as the allegations therein are insufficient to initiate a preliminary investigation, there being no statement of specific and individual acts or omissions constituting reckless imprudence. They bewail the assumptions or conclusions of law in the NBI-NCR Report as well as the bare narrations in the affidavits that lack any imputation relating to them as the persons allegedly responsible.

IN FINE, petitioners contend that absent any act or omission ascribed to them, it is unreasonable to expect them to confirm, deny or explain their side.

In the present case, there is no doubt about the existence of affidavits. The appellate court found that "certain complaint-affidavits were already filed by some of the victims," a factual finding to which this Court, by rule, generally defers.

On the Claim of Bias and Prejudgment

On the remaining issues, petitioners charge respondents to have lost the impartiality to conduct the preliminary investigation since they had prejudged the case, in support of which they cite the "indecent" haste in the conduct of the proceedings. Thus, they mention the conduct of the criminal investigation within 24 working days and the issuance of subpoenas immediately following the creation of the Investigating Panel.

Petitioners likewise cite the following public declarations made by Gonzalez as expressing his conclusions that a crime had been committed, that the show was the proximate cause, and that the show’s organizers are guilty thereof.

Ruling:

A FINAL WORD. The Court takes this occasion to echo its disposition in Cruz v. Salva where it censured a fiscal for inexcusably allowing undue publicity in the conduct of preliminary investigation and appreciated the press for wisely declining an unusual probing privilege. Agents of the law ought to recognize the buoys and bounds of prudence in discharging what they may deem as an earnest effort to herald the government’s endeavor in solving a case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

No comments: