ANGELITO P. MAGNO, Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
MICHAEL MONSOD, ESTHER LUZ MAE GREGORIO, GIAN CARLO CAJOLES, NENETTE CASTILLON, DONATO
ENABE and ALFIE
FERNANDEZ, G.R.
No. 171542, April 6, 2011
“x x x.
Through a petition for review on certiorari,[1] petitioner
Angelito P. Magno seeks the reversal of the Amended Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dated September
26, 2005[2] in People
of the Philippines,
et al. v. Hon.
Augustine A. Vestil, Presiding Judge, RTC Mandaue City, Br. 56, et al. (docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 79809), and its Resolution dated February
6, 2006[3] denying
respondents motion for reconsideration.[4] The
assailed rulings denied the petition for certiorari filed
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and upheld the ruling[5] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City,
which precluded Atty. Adelino B. Sitoy
from acting as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. DU-10123.[6]
X x x.
The Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has
appellate jurisdiction over the RTCs decision not to allow Atty. Sitoy to
prosecute the case on behalf of the Ombudsman
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606
created the Sandiganbayan. Section
4 thereof establishes the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction:
Section 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, of the Revised
Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
x x x x
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection of this section in relation to their office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional
trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of
their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs
and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of
similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases
filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not
be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated
and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the
Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with
the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its
special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in
cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In case private individuals are charged as
co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and
employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
them.
Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil
action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously
instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the
Sandiganbayan or to appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being
deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of civil action, and no right to
reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall
be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had theretofore
been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the
criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned." [emphasis and underscoring supplied]
This is clear: the Sandiganbayan has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over resolutions issued by RTCs in the
exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction.
We
reaffirmed this rule in Abbot.[37] In
that case, petitioner Engr. Abbot filed a petition for certiorari before
the CA, claiming that the RTC gravely abused its discretion for not dismissing
the information for Malversation thru Falsification of Public Document. The
CA refused to take cognizance of the case, holding that the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the petition. Recognizing the amendments made to
PD No. 1606 by RA No. 7975,[38] we
sustained the CAs position since Section 4 of PD No. 1606 has expanded the
Sandiganbayans jurisdiction to include petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.[39]
In
the present case, the CA erred when it took cognizance of the petition for certiorari filed
by Magno. While it is true that the interlocutory order issued by the RTC is
reviewable by certiorari,
the same was incorrectly filed with the CA. Magno
should have filed the petition for certiorari with
the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the RTC
since the accused are public officials charged of committing crimes in their capacity
as Investigators of the National Bureau of Investigation.[40]
The
CA should have dismissed the petition outright. Since it acted without authority,
we overrule theSeptember 26, 2005 Amended Decision of the CA and the
subsequent denial of Magnos motions for reconsideration.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and
the CAs judgment, issued without
jurisdiction, is void.
There
is no rule in procedural law as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is
conferred by law,[41] and
any judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void[42] and
cannot be given any effect.[43] This
rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on
appeal or even after final judgment.[44]
We
reiterated and clarified the rule further in Felicitas
M. Machado, et al. v. Ricardo L. Gatdula, et al.,[45] as
follows:
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred
by law and not by the parties action or conduct. Estoppel generally does
not confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where none, by
law, exists. In Lozon v. NLRC, we declared that:
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the suit is yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This
defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final
judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is
conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to
themselves determine or conveniently set aside.
We
note that Magno had already raised in his supplemental motion for reconsideration
before the CA[46] the
ground of lack of jurisdiction before the CAs Decision became final. The CA did
not even consider this submission, choosing instead to brush it aside for its
alleged failure to raise new or substantial grounds for reconsideration.[47]Clearly, however, its lack of
jurisdiction is a new and substantial argument that the CA should have passed
upon.
The Office of the Ombudsman cannot rely on
the principle of estoppel to cure the jurisdictional defect of its petition
before the CA
The
Ombudsman cannot rely on the principle of estoppel in
this case
since Magno raised the issue of jurisdiction before the CAs decision became final. Further, even if the issue had been raised only on appeal to this Court, the CAs lack of jurisdiction could still not be cured. In Machado,[48] citing People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Casiano,[49] we held:
since Magno raised the issue of jurisdiction before the CAs decision became final. Further, even if the issue had been raised only on appeal to this Court, the CAs lack of jurisdiction could still not be cured. In Machado,[48] citing People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Casiano,[49] we held:
In People v. Casiano, this Court, on
the issue of estoppel, held:
The operation of the principle of estoppel on
the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court
actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the
case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the
parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the
same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel. However if the lower court had jurisdiction,
and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as
that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such
theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position
that the lower court had jurisdiction.
X x x.”
[10] Section 31. Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or
designate or deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government
service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized
to assist him herein provided shall be under his supervision and control.
The Ombudsman and his investigators and
prosecutors, whether regular members of his staff or designated by him as herein
provided, shall have authority to administer oaths, to issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum, to summon and compel witnesses to appear and testify
under oath before them and/or bring books, documents and other things under
their control, and to secure the attendance or presence of any absent or
recalcitrant witness through application before the Sandiganbayan or before any
inferior or superior court having jurisdiction of the place where the witness
or evidence is found.
[38] Section.
4 of RA No. 7975 has since been supplanted by RA No. 8249: AN ACT FURTHER
DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES (but has retained the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs).
[41] Machado v. Gatdula, G.R.
No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559, citing Spouses Vargas
v. Spouses Caminas, G.R. Nos. 137839-40, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 305, 317; Metromedia
Times Corporation v. Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA
320, 335; and Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 229 Phil.
234, 242 (1986).
[42] Id. at 560, citing National Housing Authority
v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 142601,
October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 38, 43.
[44] Id. at
559, citing Lozon v. NLRC, 310
Phil. 1, 12-13 (1995), citing La Naval Drug Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78 (1994).
