Dacudao vs. Gonzales G.R No. 188056

Page |1
Dacudao vs. Gonzales excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal nor any plain,
G.R No. 188056 speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Yet,
petitioners have not shown a compliance with the requisites. To start
Facts: with, they merely alleged that the Secretary of Justice had acted
Petitioners, residents of Bacaca Road, Davao City - were among the without or in excess of his jurisdiction. Also, the petition did not show
investors whom Celso G. Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates in the that the Secretary of Justice was an officer exercising judicial or
Legacy Group of Companies (Legacy Group) allegedly defrauded quasi-judicial functions. Instead, the Secretary of Justice would
through the Legacy Group's "buy back agreement" that earned them appear to be not exercising any judicial or quasi-judicial functions
check payments that were dishonored. After their written demands for because his questioned issuances were ostensibly intended to ensure
the return of their investments went unheeded, they initiated a number his subordinates’ efficiency and economy in the conduct of the
of charges for syndicated estafa against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. in preliminary investigation of all the cases involving the Legacy Group.
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City on February 6, 2009.
On March 18, 2009, the Secretary of Justice issued Department of The function involved was purely executive or administrative. The fact
Justice (DOJ) Order No. 182 (DO No. 182), directing all Regional that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does
State Prosecutors, Provincial Prosecutors, and City Prosecutors to not make it a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary
forward all cases already filed against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. to the investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Nor does the
Secretariat of the DOJ Special Panel in Manila for appropriate action. DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of
Pursuant to DO No. 182, the complaints of petitioners were forwarded a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. The
by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City to the Secretariat of prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt
the Special Panel of the DOJ. Aggrieved by such turn of events, or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor
petitioners have directly come to the Court via petition for certiorari, rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial,
prohibition and mandamus, ascribing to respondent Secretary of and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be
Justice grave abuse of discretion in issuing DO No. 182. reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare
his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits
They claim that DO No. 182 violated their right to due process, their and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has
right to the equal protection of the laws, and their right to the speedy been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that
disposition of cases. They insist that DO No. 182 was an obstruction the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that
of justice and a violation of the rule against enactment of laws with determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is
retroactive effect. the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the
fiscal.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Secretary of Justice committed grave
abuse of discretion in issuing DO No. 182.
Held:
No. For a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following
requisites must concur, namely: (a) it must be directed against a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(b) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

Dacudao vs. Gonzales G.R No. 188056

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dacudao vs. Gonzales G.R No. 188056

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page |1

You might also like