The Department of Justice (DOJ) will resume on January 24 the preliminary investigation of the two murder complaints filed against suspended Bureau of Corrections Director General Gerald Bantag after its panel of prosecutors junked his motion seeking the inhibition of the DOJ panel of prosecutors hearings his cases.
Bantag was charged as “principal by inducement” in the killings of radio commentator Percival “Percy Lapid” C. Mabasa last Oct. 3 in Las Pinas City and inmate Cristito Villamor Palana last Oct. 8 at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.
Palana had been pinpointed by Mabasa’s self-confessed gunman Joel S. Escorial as his “middleman” in the slaying of the radio broadcaster. Escorial and his alleged accomplices have also been charged with murder and their case has been consolidated with those of Bantag’s and the other suspects.
Bantag had sought the inhibition of the panel as he pointed out that the murder complaints against him are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), among other allegations.
“There is no violation of respondent Bantag’s rights to due process to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, as the Panel remains, and will continue to remain, independent and impartial in hearing these cases, more importantly in their resolution,” the DOJ panel resolution stated.
The DOJ further ruled that it has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on the murder charges against Bantag and several others.
In a 17-page resolution issued by the panel of prosecutors, the DOJ held that the OMB has no exclusive jurisdiction over investigation and prosecution of cases involving public officers and employees before the regular courts, contrary to the arguments raised by Bantag in his motion for inhibition filed against the panel.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the instant motion is hereby denied for lack of merit,” the panel ruled.
“Undoubtedly, the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15(1) of R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority with respect to the offense charged,” the resolution said.
“There is no basis under the law and existing jurisprudence that would directly support the conclusion of respondent Bantag that the power of the Ombudsman with respect to the offenses charged under Section 15(1) of R.A. 6770 is exclusive to it,” it added.
The DOJ prosecutors noted that the DOJ and the Ombudsman entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on March 29, 2012 clarifying the jurisdiction in the conduct of preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings for complaints against public officers and employees.
The MOA states: “The OMB and the prosecution offices of the DOJ shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the complaints for the crimes involving public officers and employees falling outside the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; Provided, that the office where such a complaint is filed for preliminary investigation shall acquire jurisdiction over the complaint to the exclusion of the other;
Provided further, that the OMB may refer/endorse any complaint filed before it to any prosecution office of the DOJ having jurisdiction over the complaint.”
In the case of Batnag, the DOJ said while he occupies a position with a pay grade higher than salary grade 27, the murder cases against him do fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Bantag through his lawyer Rocky Balisong sought the inhibition of the DOJ prosecutors and the immediate transfer of the investigation of the murder charges before the Ombudsman, which he said has the primary jurisdiction over his client under Article 11, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Balisong said the said provision of the Constitution gives the Ombudsman the power to investigate all cases committed by public officials.
Bantag’s camp also cited Section 15, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. 6770 Republic which gives the Ombudsman the power to investigate cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Aside from this, Balisong also accused the DOJ of being biased against his client, thus, warranting the inhibition of the DOJ prosecutors from conducting the preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to elevate the case for trial.