Tag: National Prosecution Service

Untangling Defamation: Navigating Appeals and Evidence in Honor-Related Disputes

In Urmaza v. Rojas, the Supreme Court addressed the proper procedure for appealing decisions in defamation cases within the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The Court upheld the dismissal of Meriam Urmaza’s petition, clarifying that when a complaint for Oral Defamation or Intriguing Against Honor is filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR) and falls under the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Prosecutor’s ruling is final. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal challenges and clarifies the hierarchy of appeals within the NPS system, streamlining the process for resolving such disputes.

From Barangay Hall to Courtroom: Did a Word of Mouth Warrant Legal Action?

The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by Meriam Urmaza against Ramon Torres Domingo, accusing him of Intriguing Against Honor and/or Oral Defamation. Urmaza alleged that Domingo spread rumors about her being a thief, specifically in connection to a missing handgun. The dispute originated from a confrontation at the barangay level, where Domingo voiced his suspicions about Urmaza’s involvement in the theft. According to Urmaza, Domingo continued to defame her by shouting accusations whenever he passed by her house. Domingo denied these allegations, stating that he only expressed his suspicion during the barangay confrontation and later reported the incident to the police.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) initially dismissed Urmaza’s complaint due to insufficient evidence. Urmaza filed a motion for reconsideration nearly two years later, claiming she never received the initial resolution. This motion was also denied, leading her to appeal to the Office of the Regional Prosecution (ORP). Initially, the ORP dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds but later addressed the merits, affirming the OPP’s dismissal due to a lack of credible corroborating evidence. Urmaza then took the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed for being the wrong remedy. The CA pointed out that Urmaza should have filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) instead.

The Supreme Court then addressed the procedural correctness of Urmaza’s actions. The Court emphasized that the appeals process within the NPS is governed by DOJ Department Circular No. 70, also known as the “2000 NPS Rule on Appeal.” This circular generally requires resolutions of the ORP to be appealed via a verified petition for review before the Secretary of Justice (SOJ). However, Department Circular No. 70-A modified this procedure, delegating authority to the ORPs to rule with finality on cases subject to preliminary investigation/reinvestigation, provided that the case is not filed in the NCR and is cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs).

In order to expedite the disposition of appealed cases governed by Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000 (“2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL”), all petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases 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.

Department Circular No. 018-14 further solidified this delegation of authority. This circular reinforces that appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors, except those from the National Capital Region, in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, shall be by way of a petition for review to the concerned Regional Prosecutor. The Regional Prosecutor’s resolution is deemed final, although the Secretary of Justice retains the power to review, modify, or reverse these resolutions.

The Supreme Court then laid out clear guidelines for the appeals process, distinguishing between cases filed within and outside the NCR, and those cognizable by MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs. If a complaint is filed outside the NCR and is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealed by way of petition for review before the ORP, which ruling shall be with finality. If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealed by way of petition for review before the SOJ, which ruling shall be with finality.

The Court also noted a critical procedural lapse by Urmaza. Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court requires petitions for certiorari to indicate the material dates showing when the judgment or final order was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received. Urmaza failed to provide these dates, making it impossible for the CA to determine if the petition was filed within the 60-day reglementary period.

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. – x x x

In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

Even if the procedural issues were set aside, the Court proceeded to examine the merits of Urmaza’s claims. The Court reiterated that a public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause is an executive function generally beyond judicial scrutiny, except when tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion transcends mere judgmental error and pertains to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

The elements of Oral Defamation include: (1) an imputation of a crime, vice, or defect; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person; and (6) tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. Meanwhile, Intriguing Against Honor penalizes creating intrigue with the principal purpose of blemishing a person’s honor or reputation. In this case, the OPP and ORP found insufficient evidence to indict Domingo for either crime. The ORP emphasized that a prosecution for oral defamation requires the utterance to be not only defamatory but also made publicly. There was a lack of corroborating evidence to support Urmaza’s claims that Domingo publicly called her a “thief.” Therefore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the prosecutor’s determination.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the certiorari petition outright due to improper remedy, specifically regarding the appeals process within the National Prosecution Service for defamation cases.
What is the correct procedure for appealing decisions in defamation cases outside the NCR?	If the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Prosecutor’s ruling is final. If it does not, the appeal should be directed to the Secretary of Justice.
What did the Court say about the evidence presented by Urmaza?	The Court agreed with the lower courts that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Domingo publicly defamed Urmaza. The court pointed to the lack of corroborating witnesses to prove the utterances was made publicly.
What is the significance of Department Circular No. 70-A?	Department Circular No. 70-A delegates to the Regional State Prosecutors the authority to rule with finality on certain appealed cases. This delegation aims to expedite the disposition of cases by streamlining the appeals process.
*What information must be included in a petition for certiorari?*	The petition must indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
What are the elements of Oral Defamation under Philippine law?	The elements include an imputation of a crime, vice, or defect; made orally; publicly; maliciously; directed to a person; and tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
What is the definition of Intriguing Against Honor?	Intriguing Against Honor is defined as any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.
Can a public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause be reviewed by the courts?	Yes, a public prosecutor’s determination can be reviewed if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. This ensures that the prosecutor acts within the bounds of their authority.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Urmaza v. Rojas provides clarity on the appeals process for defamation cases within the NPS, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the need for sufficient evidence to support claims of defamation. It also underscores the limited scope of judicial review over a prosecutor’s determination of probable cause. Understanding these principles is crucial for both complainants and respondents in defamation cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Urmaza v. Rojas, G.R. No. 240012, January 22, 2020

January 22, 2020

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Clarifying Appeals Process in Perjury Cases Before the National Prosecution Service

In Mina v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court clarified the correct procedure for appealing decisions in perjury cases that have undergone preliminary investigation by the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The Court held that if a perjury complaint is filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR) and the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, the decision of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) can be appealed to the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP), whose ruling is considered final, unless the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) exercises their power of review. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the proper administrative channels before seeking judicial intervention, streamlining the appeals process for cases cognizable by lower courts.

Navigating the Appeals Maze: When Can You Skip the Justice Secretary?

The petitioners, Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz, filed a complaint for perjury against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc. The case wound its way through the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan (OPP) and the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP), ultimately leading to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The central question was whether the petitioners prematurely sought judicial relief without exhausting all available administrative remedies. This brings into focus the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a principle deeply embedded in Philippine administrative law.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires parties to exhaust all available administrative avenues before resorting to the courts. This principle is based on several sound considerations. First, it allows administrative agencies to correct their own errors, thus obviating unnecessary judicial intervention. Second, it ensures that courts are not burdened with cases that can be resolved through administrative processes. Third, it respects the competence and expertise of administrative bodies in handling matters within their jurisdiction. However, like all general rules, there are exceptions to this doctrine.

In this case, the CA dismissed the petition, citing Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 70-A, which it interpreted as requiring an appeal to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) before elevating the matter to the courts. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, pointing to the specific provisions of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A and its subsequent amendments, particularly DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14. To fully appreciate the Court’s reasoning, it is crucial to understand the evolution of the appeals process within the National Prosecution Service (NPS).

Initially, DOJ Department Circular No. 70 outlined the general appeals process, mandating that resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutor in cases subject of preliminary investigation be appealed to the SOJ. However, this was quickly amended by DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, which delegated authority to the ORSPs to resolve appeals in certain cases with finality. This delegation specifically applied to cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except those filed in the National Capital Region (NCR). The rationale behind this delegation was to expedite the disposition of appealed cases and streamline the administrative process.

The Court emphasized the importance of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, which states:

In order to expedite the disposition of appealed cases governed by Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000 (“2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL”), 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.

Further solidifying this framework, DOJ Department Circular No. 018-14 reinforced the delegation of authority to the ORSPs, while also clarifying the SOJ’s power to review, modify, or reverse the resolutions of the Regional Prosecutor in these appealed cases, pursuant to their power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service. The interplay between these circulars was thoroughly analyzed in the case of Cariaga v. Sapigao, wherein the Court harmonized the provisions to provide a clearer understanding of the appeals process.

To better illustrate the prevailing appeals process, the following table summarizes the rules based on the location of the complaint and the court with original jurisdiction:

Complaint Location	Court Jurisdiction	Appeal Route	Finality
Outside NCR	MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs	ORSP	Final (subject to SOJ review)
Outside NCR	Other Courts	SOJ	Final
Within NCR	MTCs	Prosecutor General	Final (subject to SOJ review)
Within NCR	Other Courts	SOJ	Final

In applying these principles to the case at hand, the Supreme Court noted that the criminal complaint for perjury was filed outside the NCR, and perjury cases fall under the jurisdiction of the first-level courts, as the maximum penalty for perjury is imprisonment for less than six years. Furthermore, there was no indication that the SOJ exercised their power to review the ORSP’s ruling. Therefore, the ORSP’s decision affirming the dismissal of the complaint was considered final, and the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies. As such, the petitioners were justified in seeking relief from the CA through a petition for certiorari.

The Court held that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the petitioners had availed of the wrong remedy. Given that the dismissal was based on a technicality, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to remand the case to the CA for resolution on the merits. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the proper administrative channels while also ensuring that technicalities do not unduly impede access to justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, or whether they should have first appealed the ORSP ruling to the Secretary of Justice.
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies?	The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires parties to exhaust all available administrative avenues before resorting to the courts. This is to allow administrative agencies to correct their own errors and to prevent unnecessary judicial intervention.
What are the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies?	Exceptions include instances where the administrative remedy is inadequate, when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency, or when the issue is purely legal.
What is the role of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) in the appeals process?	The ORSP resolves appeals from resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except in the National Capital Region (NCR). Their ruling is considered final unless reviewed by the Secretary of Justice (SOJ).
What is the significance of DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A?	DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A delegated authority to the ORSPs to resolve appeals in certain cases with finality, specifically those cognizable by the MTCs, MeTCs, and MCTCs outside the NCR, aiming to expedite the appeals process.
Does the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) have any power to review decisions of the ORSP?	Yes, the SOJ retains the power to review, modify, or reverse the resolutions of the Regional Prosecutor, pursuant to their power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution Service.
How does the location of the complaint affect the appeals process?	If the complaint is filed outside the NCR, appeals generally go to the ORSP or SOJ, depending on the court with jurisdiction. If filed within the NCR, appeals go to the Prosecutor General or SOJ, also depending on the court with jurisdiction.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case for resolution on the merits, holding that the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies.

The Mina v. Court of Appeals decision serves as a valuable guide for understanding the intricacies of the appeals process within the National Prosecution Service, particularly in cases involving offenses cognizable by lower courts. By clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various prosecutorial offices and the Secretary of Justice, the Court has provided a clearer framework for litigants seeking to challenge adverse rulings in criminal cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

January 28, 2019

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: When to Seek Justice in Courts and Agencies

The Supreme Court ruled that while exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before seeking judicial intervention, there are exceptions. In cases involving concurrent jurisdiction between administrative agencies and courts, some issues may be ripe for judicial review while others require administrative resolution. This means a party cannot have their case completely dismissed from court because one of the issues they raised requires review by an administrative agency. This decision clarifies when parties can directly access the courts and when they must first navigate administrative channels.

Navigating Legal Channels: When Can You Skip the Administrative Route?

This case involves Danilo Calivo Cariaga, who filed a complaint against Emmanuel D. Sapigao and Ginalyn C. Acosta for Falsification of Public Documents, False Certification, and Slander by Deed. Cariaga alleged that Sapigao and Acosta, as Barangay Chairman and Secretary, respectively, made false entries in the barangay blotter, which led to a search and seizure operation at his residence. After the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) ruled against him, Cariaga directly appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) without seeking review from the Secretary of Justice (SOJ). The CA dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, leading to this Supreme Court case that explores the boundaries of administrative exhaustion and judicial review.

The principle of **exhaustion of administrative remedies** generally requires parties to pursue all available administrative avenues before seeking judicial relief. The rationale behind this doctrine is to allow administrative bodies to rule on matters within their competence and expertise, prevent premature judicial intervention, and ensure that courts have the benefit of the agency’s views. However, this rule is not absolute. As the Supreme Court has noted, exhaustion is excused in cases where the administrative remedy is inadequate, or when its pursuit would be futile. It is also waived when the issue is purely legal, when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned, or when the administrative agency is patently without jurisdiction.

In the Philippine legal system, the Department of Justice (DOJ) plays a significant role in the appeals process of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). Department Circular No. 70, also known as the “2000 NPS Rule on Appeal,” initially required that all resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutor (RSP) be appealed to the SOJ. However, Department Circular No. 70-A amended this, delegating the authority to Regional State Prosecutors to resolve appeals in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs) with finality. This delegation aimed to expedite the disposition of appealed cases at the local level.

Department Circular No. 018-14 further revised the delegation of authority on appealed cases. It specified that appeals from resolutions of Provincial or City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs should be directed to the Regional Prosecutor, whose decision would be final. However, the Secretary of Justice retained the power to review, modify, or reverse the resolutions of the Regional Prosecutor. This created a tiered system where certain cases could be resolved at the regional level, while others required review by the SOJ, based on the nature of the offense and the location of the complaint.

The Supreme Court clarified that in the present case, the CA erred in dismissing Cariaga’s petition entirely. Cariaga’s complaint involved multiple charges: Falsification of Public Documents (cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts), False Certification, and Slander by Deed (both cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs). According to the prevailing rules, the ORSP’s ruling on Falsification of Public Documents could still be appealed to the SOJ. In contrast, the ORSP’s ruling on False Certification and Slander by Deed should be considered final within the NPS and could thus be elevated to the courts.

The Court explained that, based on the specific facts, the CA should have resolved Cariaga’s petition on the merits regarding the crimes of False Certification and Slander by Deed. Instead of remanding the case, the Supreme Court opted to resolve the substantive issues, invoking its power to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case and to better serve the ends of justice.

In determining whether to overturn the findings of the public prosecutor, the Court reiterated the principles outlined in Hilbero v. Morales, Jr., stating that a public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause is an executive function that generally lies beyond judicial scrutiny. The exception to this rule is when such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, which goes beyond mere judgmental error and pertains to a jurisdictional aberration. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction.

In this context, the Supreme Court concluded that the ORSP had not committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges of Slander by Deed and False Certification. The ORSP found that the blotter entries were made in good faith, in the performance of official duties, without any intention to defame Cariaga, and were supported by testimonies from disinterested parties. In contrast, Cariaga’s claims that the entries were false were self-serving and lacked evidentiary weight. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the ORSP’s finding of no probable cause to indict the respondents for the said crimes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Cariaga was required to appeal the ORSP’s ruling to the Secretary of Justice before seeking judicial review in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court clarified the rules on exhaustion of administrative remedies in the context of the National Prosecution Service.
What is exhaustion of administrative remedies?	Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a doctrine requiring parties to pursue all available administrative channels before seeking judicial relief. This allows administrative bodies to resolve matters within their competence and expertise, preventing premature judicial intervention.
When is exhaustion of administrative remedies not required?	Exhaustion is not required when the administrative remedy is inadequate, its pursuit would be futile, the issue is purely legal, there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency, or the agency lacks jurisdiction.
What is the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in this case?	The DOJ oversees the National Prosecution Service (NPS), and its circulars define the appeals process within the NPS. Department Circulars 70, 70-A, and 018-14 outline the levels of appeal and the authority of Regional State Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice.
What crimes were Cariaga accusing Sapigao and Acosta of?	Cariaga accused Sapigao and Acosta of Falsification of Public Documents, False Certification, and Slander by Deed, all in relation to entries made in the barangay blotter.
What was the ORSP’s ruling in this case?	The ORSP ruled that there was no probable cause to indict Sapigao and Acosta for the crimes they were accused of. They found the blotter entries were made in good faith and without any intention to defame Cariaga.
What did the Court of Appeals (CA) decide?	The CA dismissed Cariaga’s petition, holding that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the ORSP’s ruling to the Secretary of Justice before going to court.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied Cariaga’s petition, but clarified that the CA should have resolved the petition on the merits regarding the crimes of False Certification and Slander by Deed, as the ORSP ruling on those charges was final.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the specific rules governing administrative appeals and the circumstances under which judicial intervention is appropriate. It underscores the principle that while exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required, it is not a rigid and inflexible rule, and exceptions exist to prevent injustice and undue delay.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

February 5, 2018