View full case

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MANUEL E. GAITE

FACTS:

Petitioner Adoracion G. Angeles, a former Presiding Judge, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, contesting the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in relation to a complaint filed against her for child abuse. The complaint was filed by her grandniece and assigned to State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco for preliminary investigation. Velasco filed a case against petitioner for 21 counts of Child Abuse, but the Department of Justice Secretary later ordered the withdrawal of the Information against her. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Velasco, which was subsequently dismissed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed a Petition for Review with the Office of the President (OP) challenging the dismissal of her administrative complaint. Respondent Velasco made statements regarding petitioner's character and reputation as a public servant in his comment, prompting petitioner to file a complaint for libel against him. The complaint for libel was dismissed by the Assistant City Prosecutor and affirmed by the CA. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the CA's decision before the Supreme Court.

The complainant filed a complaint for libel against the respondent, alleging that he made derogatory statements about her in his reply/comment to the Office of the President. The complaint was dismissed by the DOJ and the Petition for Review with the OP was similarly dismissed based on a memorandum circular specifying appealable offenses. The petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the OP arguing that her petition should be entertained.

Petitioner filed a complaint for libel, but it was dismissed by the Secretary of Justice based on Memorandum Circular No. 58 which grants exclusive jurisdiction over certain offenses to the President. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA, but it was denied based on the doctrine of qualified political agency. The CA held that the acts of a Department Secretary are deemed to be the acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the application of MC No. 58 in dismissing petitioner's petition for review is valid.

  2. Whether the OP's outright dismissal of petitioner's Petition for Review was valid and binding.

  3. Whether the Memorandum Circular unduly expands the power of the Secretary of Justice to the extent of rendering the Chief Executive helpless to rectify whatever errors or abuses the former may commit in the exercise of his discretion.

  4. Whether the power of the President to review the Decision of the Secretary of Justice dealing with the preliminary investigation of cases can be delegated.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner is allowed to appeal to the Office of the President for crimes not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.

  6. Whether or not the Department of Justice resolutions became final and executory when the petitioner failed to elevate said resolutions directly to the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period.

  7. Whether the modification of the decision is allowed.

  8. Whether the modification will be made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest court of the land.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that the Office of the President (OP), relying on MC No. 58, dismissed petitioner's petition for review and exercised its prerogative not to disapprove or overturn the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary's resolutions. The CA ruled that petitioner cannot question the validity of MC No. 58, as it is deemed valid until annulled in proper proceedings.

  2. The CA held that the dismissal of petitioner's petition for review by the DOJ became final and executory after petitioner failed to elevate the said resolutions directly to the CA within the reglementary period provided for under the Revised Rules of Court. The CA stated that under MC No. 58, the filing of a petition for review of the Secretary of Justice's decision or resolution on preliminary investigations to the OP is prohibited except for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The CA concluded that since the dismissal by the DOJ became final and executory, the court cannot alter, modify, or reverse such dismissal.

  3. The Memorandum Circular does not unduly expand the power of the Secretary of Justice to the extent of rendering the Chief Executive helpless to rectify whatever errors or abuses the former may commit in the exercise of his discretion. The President has the power to delegate whatever he deems necessary to achieve proper and speedy administration of justice, especially to a cabinet secretary who is his alter ego.

  4. The power of the President to review the Decision of the Secretary of Justice dealing with the preliminary investigation of cases can be delegated. The President has not fully abdicated his power of control as the Memorandum Circular allows an appeal if the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher. It is unreasonable to impose upon the President the task of reviewing all preliminary investigations decided by the Secretary of Justice.

  5. The petitioner is not allowed to appeal to the Office of the President for crimes not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Department of Justice, as the government's principal law agency, serves as the government's prosecution arm and administers the government's criminal justice system. The Department's functions are within the realm of its expertise and under the executive branch's power of control.

  6. The Department of Justice resolutions became final and executory when the petitioner failed to elevate said resolutions directly to the Court of Appeals within the 60-day reglementary period. The petitioner's action of filing a petition for review before the Office of the President, on the grounds of exhausting administrative remedies, was fatal to her case. Memorandum Circular No. 58 prohibits the filing of such a petition with the Office of the President. The petitioner should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within 60 days from receipt of the Department of Justice resolution denying her motion for reconsideration.

  7. The modification of the decision is allowed if it is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.

  8. The modification will be made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest court of the land.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Doctrine of qualified political agency - Under this doctrine, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, and the heads of various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive. The President's act of delegating authority to a department secretary is within the purview of this doctrine.

  • MC No. 58 - The validity of MC No. 58, which prohibits filing a petition for review of the Secretary of Justice's decision or resolution on preliminary investigations to the OP, cannot be collaterally attacked. It is deemed valid until annulled in proper proceedings.

  • The President is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and the heads of the executive departments are in reality but the projection of the President's personality. Therefore, the acts of the secretaries of executive departments are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.

  • The power of the President to delegate is not without limits. There are certain presidential powers that arise out of exceptional circumstances and demand the exclusive exercise by the President. However, the power of the President to review the Decision of the Secretary of Justice dealing with the preliminary investigation of cases does not fall within this exceptional class and can be delegated.

  • The Department of Justice, as the government's principal law agency, serves as the government's prosecution arm and administers the government's criminal justice system. It is under the executive branch's power of control. (Administrative Code of 1987, EO No. 292)

  • The acts of the secretaries of executive departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or reprobated by the President. (Memorandum Circular No. 58)

  • The determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is within the full discretionary authority of the executive branch of the government. The decision to dismiss a criminal complaint is dependent on the sound discretion of the Investigating Prosecutor and ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. (Revised Administrative Code)

  • Final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked or modified, even by the highest court of the land, except in certain circumstances such as the correction of clerical errors, void judgments, and when circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and inequitable. (Doctrine of finality of judgment)

  • The court has the power to modify its decision to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.

  • A petition for review may be denied if there is no need to discuss the other arguments raised by the petitioner.