Santos-Concio Vs DOJ
Santos-Concio Vs DOJ
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
71
72
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
On challenge via petition for review on certiorari are the Court of1
Appeals May 24, 2006 Decision and October 10, 2006 Resolution
in CA-G.R. SP No. 93763 dismissing herein petitioners’ petition for
certiorari and prohibition that sought to (i) annul respondent
2 3
Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Order Nos. 90 and 165
dated February 8, 2006 and March 8, 2006, respectively, and all
orders, proceedings and issuances emanating therefrom, and (ii)
prohibit the DOJ
_______________
73
_______________
74
_______________
75
_______________
9 Rollo, p. 170.
10 Id., at pp. 175-242.
11 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 365 in relation to Arts. 249, 263, 265 & 266, as
amended.
12 [Ma. Rosario] “Charo” Santos-Concio (Executive Vice President of ABS-
CBN Broadcasting Corp. and Head of ABS-CBN’s Entertainment Group); Maria
Socorro V. Vidanes (Senior Vice President of the Television Production Department
of ABS-CBN’s Entertainment Group); Marilou Almaden (Business Unit Head and
Executive Producer of ABS-CBN in charge of supervision of entertainment shows);
Cipriano “Rene” Luspo (Assistant Vice President and Head of Security of ABS-
CBN); Morly Stewart [Nueva] (Executive Producer and Manager of the Wowowee
show); Harold James Nueva (Associate Producer for Sets & Technicals of the
Wowowee show); Norbert Vidanes (Director of the Wowowee show); Fran[c]isco
B. Rivera (Location Manager of ABS-CBN); Mel Feliciano (Assistant Director of
the Wowowee show); Jean Owen [Ercia] (Floor Director of the Wowowee show);
together with Wilfredo “Willy” B. Revillame (Host of the Wowowee show); Rey
Cayabyab (Assistant Location Manager and Security Coordinator); Jess Velardo
(Building Administrator of the Philsports Complex); Erlinda S. Reis (Booking and
Events Coordinator of the Philsports Complex); Rosenbar O. Viloria (Staff Director
for Operations of Goldlink Security and Allied Services, Inc.); Wilfron Onanad (Se-
curity-in-Charge of Goldlink Security and Allied Services, Inc.); and
76
_______________
77
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 753-822. With a lone dissent by Investigating Panel Member State
Prosecutor Peter Ong, the Resolution bears the recommending approval of Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon and approval of Assistant Chief
State Prosecutor Miguel Gudio, Jr. for the Chief State Prosecutor.
20 Pasig City Mayor Vicente Eusebio; Pasig City Police Chief P/S Supt. Raul Z.
Medina; Pasig City PCP 15 Station Commander P/S Insp. Henry N. Asuela; Pasig
City Traffic and Parking Management Office Chief P/Insp. Khaddafy Bitor;
Philsports Complex Chief Security Officer Arnulfo Awa; Philsports Complex
Security Coordinator Eugenio Cabigas; and Oranbo Barangay Chairman Richard Pua.
21 Rollo, pp. 823-905. Petitioners allege that they also filed an “Urgent Motion to
Reopen Case and/or Reinvestigation with Motion for Issuance of Subpoenae.”
78
_______________
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy.—It is the declared policy of the State to provide the
government with a principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution
arm; administer the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof
consisting in the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the
correctional system; implement the laws on the admission and stay of aliens, citizenship, land
titling system, and settlement of land problems involving small landowners and members of
indigenous cultural minorities; and provide free legal services to indigent members of society.
SEC. 2. Mandate.—The Department shall carry out the policy declared in the preceding
section.
SEC. 3. Powers and Functions.—To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the
following powers and functions:
xxxx
79
_______________
(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation
and correction system;
x x x x. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
24 Rollo, p. 84.
25 G.R. Nos. 92319-20, October 2, 1990, 190 SCRA 226.
26 Petitioners classify this as the “second” criminal investigation, followed by the
one conducted by the NBI-NCR and preceded by that of the DILG. The latter two,
petitioners do not question. Rollo, pp. 85-86, 411.
27 Petitioners stated that “if [the Evaluating Panel] had just done that, evaluated the
report, look[ed] at the four corners, there would have not been no [sic] problem.” Id.,
at p. 414.
80
_______________
81
_______________
82
tions 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.
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. There should be no confusion about the objectives, however,
since, as intimated during the hear-ing before the appellate court,
preliminary investigation
31
is conducted precisely to elicit further facts
or evidence. Being generally inquisitorial, the preliminary
investigation stage is often the only means of discovering the
persons who may be reasonably charged with32
a crime, to enable the
preparation of a complaint or information.
Consider the following pertinent provision of Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:
_______________
31 Rollo, p. 541.
32 Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 86, 90.
83
“A close scrutiny of the letters transmitted by the BSP and PDIC to the DOJ
shows that these were not intended to be the complaint envisioned under the
Rules. It may be clearly inferred from the tenor of the letters that the officers
merely intended to transmit the affidavits of the bank employees to the DOJ.
Nowhere in the transmittal letters is there any averment on the part of the
BSP and
_______________
84
_______________
37 Id., at pp. 438-439; Tayaban v. People, G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007, 517
SCRA 488, 502-503; RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 3, where it is unlike a
“complaint” which is “x x x subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or
other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.”
38 408 Phil. 561; 356 SCRA 443 (2001). Both Oporto and the prior en banc case
of People v. Historillo (389 Phil. 141; 333 SCRA 615 [2000]) rely on U.S. v. Bibal (4
Phil. 369 [1905]) in holding that the lack of oath (even) in a criminal complaint does
not invalidate
85
_______________
the judgment of conviction since the want of an oath is a mere defect in form
which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits. Oporto,
however, involved an administrative case concerning the proper issuance of a warrant
of arrest in a criminal case not requiring a preliminary investigation, in which case the
judge needs to personally examine in writing and under oath the complainant and
witnesses, which could not have been done absent any sworn statement.
39 Vide Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 102420, December 20, 1994,
239 SCRA 283, 294-295.
40 Rollo, p. 121, citing TSN taken during the proceedings at the Court of Appeals
on April 24, 2006, at pp. 95-98, 108-119 (Rollo, pp. 467-470, 480-491).
41 Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 2.
42 Id., at Secs. 6-7.
43 Id., at Sec. 9.
44 Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, Sec. 3 (a) in relation to Rule 110, Secs. 6-
11.
86
_______________
45 Id., Rule 112, Sec. 3, par. (c).
46 Id., at par. (b).
47 Cinco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 92362-67, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA
726, 734; vide Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521
SCRA 176.
87
gation since they had prejudged the case, in support of which they
cite the “indecent” haste in the conduct of the proceedings. Thus,
they mention48the 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:
_______________
88
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Santos-Concio vs. Department of Justice
_______________
50 Vide id., at pp. 495-496, but declining to interpret the context under which the
statements were made.
51 Rollo, p. 69.
52 Id., at p. 38.
53 Id., at p. 57 citing Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 108738, June 27, 1994, 233 SCRA
439, 449-450.
89
_______________
54 Vide Gala v. Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation, 463 Phil. 846, |858-859; 418
SCRA 431, 444 (2003) citing People v. Mercado, 400 Phil. 37; 346 SCRA 256
(2000).
55 Vide id.
56 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).
57 De Chavez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 168830-31, February 6,
2007, 514 SCRA 638, 652. Cf. Ribaya v. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1547,
April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 107, 119 where the judge issued a warrant of arrest on the
same day the complaint was filed.
58 Cf. Ribaya v. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1547, April 15, 2005, 456
SCRA 107, 119 where the judge issued a warrant of arrest on the same day the
complaint was filed.
90
_______________
91
_______________
92
Petition denied.
——o0o——
_______________
93