4

Facts

The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on the proliferation of
dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed
affidavits in support of their testimonies.  These legislative inquiries led to the filing four complaints
3

with the Department of Justice

Pursuant to DOJ Department Order No. 790, the four cases were consolidated and the DOJ Panel of
Prosecutors was directed to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation. 6

The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing wherein the petitioner, through her counsel, filed
an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of the Ombudsman, arguing that
the Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints
against her, and that there is evident partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel.

During the hearing, petitioner manifested that she has decided not to submit her counter-affidavit
citing the pendency of her two motions. The DOJ Panel, however, ruled that it will not entertain
belatedly filed counter-affidavits, and declared all pending incidents and the cases as submitted for
resolution. Petitioner moved for but was denied reconsideration by the DOJ Panel.

On January 13, 2017, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Prohibition and
Certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the complaints against her.

Issue:

Whether or not a petition for certiorari is proper?

Held

No. The Court likewise held that a petition for certiorari can be resorted to only after the court a
quo has already and actually rendered its decision.

All things considered, this petition is premature. The CA has decided nothing and whatever
petitioner's vehement objections may be (to any eventual ruling on the issue of prescription) should
be raised only after such ruling shall have actually been promulgated.

Thus, the situation evidently does not yet call for a recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.