Rodriguez v. National Bureau of Investigation

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219781. July 28, 2021.]

CONGRESSMAN RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR VIRGILIO L. MENDEZ] and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA], respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 July 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 219781 (Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez v. National Bureau of Investigation [represented by Director Virgilio L. Mendez] and Department of Justice [represented by Secretary Leila De Lima]). — This is a Petition for Certiorari1 filed by Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez (petitioner) assailing: (1) the NBI Executive Summary Re: Napoles PDAF Scam Complaints (Third Batch) dated August 7, 2015 (Executive Summary) of respondent National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); 2 and (2) the resulting letter-complaints of the NBI against petitioner, among others, which respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) duly approved and filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman). 3

The Antecedents

In support of the alleged serious illegal detention of Benhur Luy y Kilap-Kilap (Luy), the latter and a certain Merlina Suñas y Pablo, among others, executed sworn statements corroborated by Special Audits Office Report No. 2012-03 of the Commission on Audit (COA). This led to an investigation conducted by the NBI on the alleged misuse and misappropriation of the congressional Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) involving Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles). 4 As a result of the investigation, the NBI filed complaints for Plunder and violations of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," against three Senators and several Congressmen of the Republic. 5

The NBI continued its investigation on the Napoles PDAF scam, the results of which were embodied in the Executive Summary. 6

In the Executive Summary, the NBI found that the lawmakers involved, including petitioner, used their PDAF in illegal transactions with Napoles' non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to enable themselves to profit from the simulated disbursements and utilization of their PDAF. Further, of the total amount used by Napoles' NGOs coming from the respective PDAF allocation of the lawmakers, 40% to 60% thereof, which is the lawmaker's share, commission, or kickback in the projects by Napoles' NGOs, is invariably delivered directly to the lawmaker or through his representative as attested to in the records of Luy or directly witnessed by Napoles' employees. 7

The NBI also found that all of the NGOs of Napoles were ghost ones. They were used as mere conduits for the purported implementation and liquidation of projects financed by the PDAF; but, in fact, were never carried out except in token amounts. The bulk of the PDAF was being pocketed by the lawmaker, Napoles, the lawmaker's representative, and officials of the implementing agencies upon the release of the PDAF by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to the implementing agency; and from the implementing agency to Napoles. 8

The NBI also explained that the release of the lawmaker's PDAF to Napoles' NGOs would not have been made possible without the requests and representations made by the lawmaker to the Senate President (in the case of a Senators) or the Speaker of the House (in the case of Congressmen), the DBM, and the implementing agencies for the release of his/her PDAF to Napoles' NGOs as the implementing and contracting NGOs. 9

As to petitioner, the NBI found that he received the amount of P2,099,000.00 as kickback. The NBI found that he used the NGO "PSDFI" as the conduit for the scam, and that the scam was facilitated by "TRC" as the implementing agency. 10

The NBI further noted that five of the lawmakers subject of the investigation, including petitioner, requested the Questioned Documents Division (QDD) of the NBI to examine their alleged signatures in the documents that were material in the release of the PDAF to the implementing agencies and Napoles' NGOs. Upon examination, the QDD found that in several of the documents, the signatures did not match the lawmaker's specimen signatures; while it was unable to arrive at a finding on the other questioned documents. The QDD therefore concluded that in the questioned documents where the signatures did not match the specimen signatures, the signatures were not written by one and the same person. However, the NBI explained that the findings of the QDD are not conclusive and binding upon the results of the investigation. The NBI added that the findings will still be subject to the scrutiny of the Sandiganbayan if the Ombudsman decides to file the criminal case with the court. Still, the NBI stressed that malversation is also committed through negligence, in which case the signatures of the lawmakers are not necessary to prove that they allowed, through their negligence, the misappropriation and misuse of the public funds entrusted to them. 11

Thus, the NBI recommended to the Ombudsman that the respondents named in the transmittal letter-complaints, including petitioner, be subjected to further fact-finding investigation or a corresponding preliminary investigation for the eventual filing of charges before the Sandiganbayan. 12 Specifically, the NBI found sufficient evidence of the commission by the nine lawmakers, including petitioner, of the following crimes and/or offenses:

1. Malversation of Public Funds (Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)) which can be committed through negligence;

2. Direct Bribery (Article 210 of the RPC);

3. Manifest partiality and bad faith in granting unwarranted benefits and advantage to the injury of the government (Section 3 (e), RA 3019);

4. Requesting a share or percentage from a government contract (Section 3 (b), RA 3019);

5. Entering into a transaction grossly disadvantageous to the government (Section 3 (g), RA 3019); and

6. Granting license or privilege to a person not qualified (Section 3 (j), RA 3019). 13

The DOJ Secretary approved the letter-complaints of the NBI against petitioner, among others, and subsequently filed with the Ombudsman. 14

The Petition

Preliminarily, petitioner avers that the NBI refused and failed to give him a certified true copy of its letter-complaints and the Executive Summary despite his request. Nevertheless, he was able to attach a photocopy of the Executive Summary which he obtained from the internet. However, he was unable to secure copies of the letter-complaints of the NBI. 15

Petitioner argues that the NBI and the DOJ acted in excess of their jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in conducting a formal investigation upon the person of petitioner in relation to the Napoles PDAF Scam. 16

Petitioner maintains that the NBI and the DOJ violated Sections 1 and 14 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution by directly and brazenly denying his constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the laws when they investigated him relative to the Napoles PDAF scam without giving him the opportunity to be heard. As a consequence, petitioner has not been apprised of the so-called "sufficient evidence for the referral of the case against him for malversation, direct bribery and graft and corrupt practices" to the Ombudsman. He was also not able to confront and/or traverse any such testimonial or documentary evidence against him. 17

Petitioner further argues that the NBI and the DOJ violated Section 5 (b) and (c) of RA 157 as well as the DOJ's Vision, Mission, and Pledge statements when it deliberately failed and completely refused to (a) issue any subpoena or subpoena duces tecum and (b) take or require his sworn truthful statements. 18

Thus, petitioner prays that judgment be rendered by the Court: (1) declaring that the NBI and the DOJ acted in excess of their jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the conduct of their investigation against him in relation to the Napoles PDAF scam; (2) annulling the letter-complaints of the NBI, as approved by the DOJ, and the investigation proceedings conducted by the NBI and the DOJ which resulted in the preparation and filing of the letter-complaints with the Ombudsman; and (3) ordering and directing the NBI and the DOJ to immediately conduct a reinvestigation to afford him his constitutional rights to due process of law with full, fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in the investigation and to present evidence in his defense. 19

In their Comment, 20 the NBI and the DOJ, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argue that: (1) they did not violate petitioner's right to due process in its conduct of the investigation without the latter's participation as all investigations conducted by the NBI are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature; and (2) the petition is fatally infirm for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. 21

Petitioner then filed his Reply. 22 SDHTEC

Issue

The main issue in the case is whether the NBI committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the letter-complaints and Executive Summary finding petitioner to have participated in the alleged misuse and misappropriation of the congressional PDAF, without affording him the opportunity to be heard during the investigation.

The Court's resolution of the main issue shall determine the issue of whether the NBI and the DOJ, the latter being the approving authority, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in filing the letter-complaints before the Ombudsman.

The Court's Ruling

The Court denies the petition.

At the outset, the Court does not find the petition fatally infirm. Specifically, the petition does not violate the principle of hierarchy of courts.

As discussed by the Court in Dio, et al. v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., 23 "[t]he established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts, as a rule, requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. A regard for judicial hierarchy clearly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals." 24

In the case of GIOS-Samar v. Department of Transportation and Communication25(GIOS-Samar), the Court ruled that "although this Court, the CA, and the RTC have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, parties are directed, as a rule, to file their petitions before the lower-ranked court. Failure to comply is sufficient cause for the dismissal of the petition." 26

However, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts admits of exceptions. The jurisprudential exceptions as enumerated in The Diocese of Bacolod, et al. v. COMELEC, et al., 27 are as follows: (1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (3) cases of first impression; (4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court; (5) exigency in certain situations; (6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (7) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression; and (8) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. 28

The Court clarified in GIOS-Samar that the common denominator among the foregoing exceptions is that the issues for resolution of the Court are purely legal. 29

As in this case, the issue to be resolved before the Court involves petitioner's invocation of his right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws insofar as he became the subject of an investigation by the NBI that imputed upon him the commission of certain offenses and/or crimes. More importantly, the issue in this case is a purely legal one, i.e., whether petitioner has the right to participate in the investigation proceedings of the NBI considering that the investigation involves his person and that the NBI ascribes to him participation in the commission of certain offenses/crimes.

Thus, the Court may very well entertain and rule on the petition.

Now, as to the merits of the case.

Petitioner maintains that the NBI and the DOJ denied him his constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the laws, and thus, violated Sections 1 and 14 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution when they conducted an investigation on his person relative to the PDAF scam without giving him the opportunity to be heard.

Sections 1 and 14 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provide:

SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

The Court fines no violation of petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the laws in the case. The NBI did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its conduct of an investigation without petitioner's active participation. AScHCD

A perusal of Section 1 of RA 157 30 particularly Section 1 (a) to (e) shows that the main functions of the NBI are merely investigative and informational in nature. Section 1 of RA 157 provides for the functions of the NBI as follows:

SECTION 1. There is hereby created a Bureau of Investigation under the Department of Justice which shall have the following functions:

(a) To undertake investigations of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines, upon its own initiative and as public interest may require;

(b) To render assistance, whenever properly requested in the investigation or detection of crimes and other offenses;

(c) To act a national clearing house of criminal and other informations for the benefit and use of all prosecuting and law-enforcement entities of the Philippines, identification records of all persons without criminal convictions, records of identifying marks, characteristics, and ownership or possession of all firearms as well as of test bullets fired therefrom;

(d) To give technical aid to all prosecuting and law-enforcement officers and entities of the Government as well as the courts that may request its services;

(e) To extend its services, whenever properly requested in the investigation of cases of administrative or civil nature in which the Government is interested;

(f) To undertake the instruction and training of a representative number of city and municipal peace officers at the request of their respective superiors along effective methods of crime investigation and detection in order to insure greater efficiency in the discharge of their duties;

(g) To establish and maintain an up-to-date scientific crime laboratory and to conduct researches in furtherance of scientific knowledge in criminal investigation;

(h) To perform such other related functions as the Secretary of Justice may assign from time to time. (Italics supplied.)

While the NBI was vested with other functions under Section 1 of RA 157, the functions are not quasi-judicial in nature and do not involve the granting of relief to any party.

The Court is aware that subsequent to RA 157, various executive orders and republic acts have been promulgated concerning the NBI. 31 The most recent amendment to RA 157 is RA 10867, otherwise known as the "National Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act," which was approved on June 23, 2016 and became effective on July 14, 2016. 32 Notably, Section 4 33 of RA 10867 expanded the powers and functions of the NBI. However, a perusal of Section 4 would show that the functions of the NBI remained to be merely investigative and informational. Suffice it to state that similar to RA 157, the additional functions enumerated under Section 4 are not quasi-judicial in nature and do not involve the granting of relief to any party.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that RA 10867 was approved and became effective after the issuance of the Executive Summary dated August 7, 2015 and the filing of the letter-complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman on even date. Thus, the scope and limits of the NBI's investigatory powers in this case must be examined on the basis of RA 157.

The Court's pronouncements in Shu v. Dee, et al.34(Shu) are instructive as to the nature of the NBI's investigatory functions.

In Shu, petitioner Ray Shu (petitioner Shu) filed a complaint before the NBI charging respondents Jaime Dee, Enriqueto Magpantay, Ramon Miranda, Larry Macillan and Edwin So (respondents Dee, et al.) of falsification of two deeds of real estate mortgage submitted to the bank. After investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of Makati charging respondents Dee, et al., of the crime of forgery and falsification of public documents. The NBI supported the complaint with a questioned documents report issued by its QDD. The questioned document report stated that the signatures of petitioner Shu which appeared on the questioned deeds were not the same as the standard sample signatures he submitted to the NBI. 35

Respondents Dee, et al., argued in their counter-affidavits that they were denied their right to due process during the NBI investigation because the agency never required them and the bank to submit the standard sample signatures of petitioner Shu for comparison. 36

The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, but the Secretary of Justice, through a resolution, reversed the City Prosecutor's findings. 37 On appeal, the CA annulled the resolution of the Secretary of Justice and affirmed the findings of the City Prosecutor. The CA ruled that respondents were denied their right to due process in the proceedings before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice. As to the proceedings before the NBI, the CA found (1) that respondents Dee, et al., were not furnished a copy of the complaint and were not likewise required to file their answer to present countervailing evidence, and (2) that all the evidence at the NBI level were solely provided by petitioner Shu. The CA denied petitioner Shu's motion for reconsideration. 38 AcICHD

On appeal, the Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA. The Court found no merit in respondents Dee, et al.' claim that they were denied due process during the NBI investigation as well as when the NBI issued the questioned documents report considering the merely investigatory, informational, non-judicial or non-quasi-judicial, and recommendatory nature of the NBI's functions. 39 The Court ruled:

On the respondents allegation that they were denied due process during the NBI investigation, we stress that the functions of this agency are merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot even determine probable cause. The NBI is an investigative agency whose findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon its own initiative or as public welfare may require in accordance with its mandate. It also renders assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes in order to prosecute the persons responsible.

Since the NBI's findings were merely recommendatory, we find that no denial of the respondents' due process right could have taken place; the NBI's findings were still subject to the prosecutor's and the Secretary of Justice's actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable cause. We find it significant that the specimen signatures in the possession of Metrobank were submitted by the respondents for the consideration of the city prosecutor and eventually of the Secretary of Justice during the preliminary investigation proceedings. Thus, these officers had the opportunity to examine these signatures.

The respondents were not likewise denied their right to due process when the NBI issued the questioned documents report. We note that this report merely stated that the signatures appearing on the two deeds and in the petitioner's submitted sample signatures were not written by one and the same person. Notably, there was no categorical finding in the questioned documents report that the respondents falsified the documents. This report, too, was procured during the conduct of the NBI's investigation at the petitioner's request for assistance in the investigation of the alleged crime of falsification. The report is inconclusive and does not prevent the respondents from securing a separate documents examination by handwriting experts based on their own evidence. On its own, the NBI's questioned documents report does not directly point to the respondents' involvement in the crime charged. Its significance is that, taken together with the other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation, these evidence could be sufficient for purposes of finding probable cause — the action that the Secretary of Justice undertook in the present case. 40 (Emphasis omitted; italics supplied.)

Here, the NBI's investigation of the Napoles PDAF scam that allegedly involved petitioner and the issuance of the Executive Summary and letter-complaints were done merely in the performance of the NBI's functions which are merely investigatory and informational in nature. The NBI did not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function when it recommended to the Ombudsman further fact-finding investigation or the corresponding preliminary investigation for the eventual filing of the appropriate charges before the Sandiganbayan. Instead, the findings of the NBI were merely recommendatory and still subject to the Ombudsman's actions.

Thus, similar to the Court's ruling in Shu, no denial of petitioner's due process right could have taken place. There is also no violation of petitioner's right to equal protection of the laws to speak of considering that based on the Court's discussion above, there is not even a vested right granted by law to any person under investigation to participate in the proceedings before the NBI.

The Court also finds no merit in petitioner's argument that the NBI and the DOJ violated Section 5 (b) and (c) of RA 157 and the DOJ's Vision, Mission, and Pledge statements by deliberately failing and refusing completely to: (a) issue any subpoena or subpoena duces tecum; and (b) take or require his sworn truthful statements.

Section 5 (b) and (c) of RA 157 provides in part:

SECTION 5. Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of Investigation shall be peace officers, and as such have the following powers:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) To issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for the appearance at Government expense of any person for investigation;

(c) To take and require sworn truthful statements of any person or persons so summoned in relation to cases under investigation, subject to constitutional restrictions;

xxx xxx xxx

There is nothing in the wording of Section 5 (b) of RA 157 which makes the issuance of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum and the taking of sworn truthful statements mandatory on the part of the NBI. As correctly argued by the NBI and the DOJ, while Section 5 (b) of RA 157 empowers the NBI to issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for the appearance, at Government expense, of any person for investigation, such matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator alone. In the same manner, the exercise of the power under Section 5 (c) of RA 157, i.e., the taking of and requiring sworn truthful statements of any person or persons so summoned in relation to cases under investigation, is left to the sound discretion of the investigator. TAIaHE

Petitioner also quoted in the petition what he claims as the DOJ's Vision, Mission, and Pledge statements which, according to him, were violated by the NBI and the DOJ. 41 The statements were quoted in the petition as follows:

a) Vision reads: "A just and peaceful society anchored on the principles of transparency, accountability, fairness and truth."

b) Mission reads: "Towards the effective and equitable administration of justice."

c) Pledge reads: "We undertake to provide every person equal access to justice, to faithfully safeguard constitutional rights and to ensure that no one is deprived of due process of law. Our commitment is to advocate for reforms in partnership with our stakeholders, to simplify processes and re-engineer system to best serve our constituents. We shall work with honor and integrity for the institution, for God and country." 42

However, aside from petitioner's failure to establish that the statements have the force of law, a plain reading of the statements fails to show a clear legal right on the part of petitioner to be issued a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum or to have his sworn truthful statement be taken in relation to the investigation proceedings before the NBI. At the risk of being repetitive, the issuance of a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for the appearance of a person under investigation and the taking of and requiring sworn truthful statements of any person, or persons so summoned in relation to cases under investigation are left to the sound discretion of the investigator.

Consequently, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NBI in conducting an investigation on the person of petitioner as to his participation in the Napoles PDAF Scam, the Court finds no ground to nullify the NBI's investigation. In the same vein, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NBI and the DOJ in filing the letter-complaints against petitioner, among others, with the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-24.

2.Id. at 26-32.

3.Id. at 4, 58. Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez alleges that the letter-complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman on August 7, 2015. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted in the Comment that the letter-complaints of the NBI against petitioner, among others, were approved by the DOJ and were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. However, the OSG did not specify the date of filing of the letter-complaints.

4. The subject investigation of the NBI is hereinafter referred to as the "Napoles PDAF scam."

5.Rollo, p. 28.

6.Id. at 26-32.

7.Id. at 28.

8.Id. at 30.

9.Id. at 28-29.

10.Id. at 30-31.

11.Id. at 32.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 26, 32.

14.Id. at 4, 58.

15.Id. at 4-5.

16.Id. at 10-11, 13.

17.Id. at 10-12.

18.Id. at 13.

19.Id. at 19.

20.Id. at 54-65.

21.Id. at 59.

22.Id. at 94-101.

23. 736 Phil. 216 (2014).

24.Id. at 224.

25. G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.

26.Id., citing Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 9 (1) and 21 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129; and Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Melicor, 495 Phil. 422, 433 (2005).

27. 751 Phil. 301 (2015).

28.Id. at 344, citing Chua v. Ang, 644 Phil. 416, 425-426 (2009).

29.GIOS-Samar v. Department of Transportation and Communication, supra note 25.

30. Entitled, "An Act Creating a Bureau of Investigation, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 19, 1947.

31. Subsequent to Republic Act No. (RA) 157, various executive orders and republic acts have been promulgated concerning the NBI. Among them are: (1) Executive Order No. (EO) 94, Series of 1947 (approved on October 4, 1947) which renamed the Bureau of Investigation to the present NBI; (2) RA 2678 (approved on June 18, 1960) which expanded and reorganized the NBI by increasing the composition of its personnel and creating additional divisions and regional offices; (3) EO 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" (signed on July 25, 1987); and (4) RA 10867, otherwise known as the "National Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act" which was approved on June 23, 2016.

32. Section 18 of RA 10867 provides that the "[a]ct shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation." RA 10867 was approved on June 23, 2016 and was published in the Philippine Star on June 29, 2016 (https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/45923?s_params=_Wc48GKEeQKbNaiG9xcP, last accessed on May 18, 2021).

33. Section 4 of RA 10867 provides:

SECTION 4. Powers and Functions. — The NBI shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) Undertake investigation and detection of crimes and offenses enumerated under Section 5 hereof;

(b) Issue subpoena for the appearance of any person for investigation or production of documents, through its officers from the ranks of Regional Director to Director;

(c) Act as a national clearing house of criminal records and other related information for the benefit of the government;

(d) Render technical assistance to government agencies and instrumentalities, when so requested;

(e) Extend assistance in cases involving extradition and mutual legal assistance, when requested by the Department of Justice;

(f) Establish an NBI Academy which shall be responsible for the recruitment, training, and development of all NBI agents and personnel, among others;

(g) Establish and maintain a Forensic and Scientific Research Center which shall serve as the primary center for forensic and scientific research in furtherance of scientific knowledge in criminal investigation, detection, evidence collection and preservation, and provide the necessary training therefor;

(h) Establish and maintain a Cyber Investigation and Assessment Center which shall serve as the nerve center for computer information technologies, data on cybercrime cases, computer intrusion, threats, and other related crimes or activities;

(i) Establish and maintain an integrated, comprehensive, and state-of-the-art network of equipment and facilities to be used by the NBI in its criminal investigation, detection, and evidence gathering, and to provide the corresponding training in this regard;

(j) Request the assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any other agency of the government, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations in its anti-crime drive. Such assistance may include the use of the agency's personnel and facilities upon prior approval by the head of the agency concerned;

(k) Conduct intelligence operations in furtherance of the foregoing powers and functions;

(l) Enter into any contract or transaction for the acquisition, ownership, possession, administration, lease, disposition or acceptance of real or personal property in its name, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice;

(m) Establish a modern NBI Clearance and Identification Center containing all derogatory and criminal records and civilian identification records, including their identifying marks and characteristics and fingerprint database, as well as dental records pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1575, entitled "Requiring Practitioners of Dentistry to Keep Records of Their Patients";

(n) Maintain, for purposes of investigative and forensic requirements of the NBI, relevant database such as ballistic records of firearms including, but not limited to, data ownership, possession and other related identifying circumstances; and Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) databank; and

(o) Perform such other functions as the President or the Secretary of Justice may assign.

34. 734 Phil. 204 (2014).

35.Id. at 208.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 209-210.

38.Id. at 210-211.

39.Id. at 213.

40.Id. at 213-214.

41. The DOJ website, as of present, provides for a page stating DOJ's "Vision, Mission, Quality Policy/Objectives, Mandate and Functions." As stated in the page of the website, the DOJ's Vision reads: "[a] just and peaceful society anchored on the principles of transparency, accountability, fairness and truth," while the DOJ's Mission reads: "[e]ffective, efficient and equitable administration of justice." Notably absent from the website is the Pledge which was quoted by petitioner. <https://www.doj.gov.ph/vision-mission-and-mandate.html> (last accessed on May 17, 2021.) Instead, the Pledge appears in a document from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Sevilla Center, San Fernando City, La Union which is under the DOJ. <https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/citizencharter/Regional/R1/OPP%20La%20Union.pdf> (last accessed on June 18, 2021.).

42.Rollo, p. 15. Emphasis, underscoring and italics omitted.