G.R. No. 187094. February 15, 2017.* LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, petitioners, vs. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, in his capacity as Officer-in Charge Provincial Prosecutor, ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, and EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ, in their capacity as members of the panel of investigating prosecutors, and RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, respondents.

 Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Supreme Court; In First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management Corp., (PPMC), et al., 576 SCRA 311 (2009), the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that it “will not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of certiorari.”—In First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management Corp. (PPMC), et al., 576 SCRA 311 (2009), this Court reiterated that it “will not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of certiorari.” In this case, the presence of compelling circumstances warrants the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives. The possibility of their arrest and incarceration should the assailed Orders be affirmed, would affect their representation of their constituents in Congress. Although the circumstances mentioned are no longer present, the merits of this case necessitate this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.    Public Interest Law Center for petitioners. LEONEN, J.:

Police Senior Inspector Arnold M. Palomo (Inspector Palomo), Deputy Provincial Chief of the Nueva Ecija Criminal Investigation and Detection Team, referred to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, three (3) cases of murder against petitioners and 15 other persons. 7

 Petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casiño, and Rafael V. Mariano (petitioners) are former members of the House of Representatives. Liza represented Gabriela Women’s Party (Gabriela), Saturnino and Teodoro represented Bayan Muna Party-List (Bayan Muna), while Rafael represented Anakpawis Party-List (Anakpawis). 5

Petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casiño, and Rafael V. Mariano (petitioners) are former members of the House of Representatives. Liza represented Gabriela Women’s Party (Gabriela), Saturnino and Teodoro represented Bayan Muna Party-List (Bayan Muna), while Rafael represented Anakpawis Party-List (Anakpawis). 5

e allegedly responsible for the death of Carlito Bayudang, Jimmy Peralta, and Danilo Felipe. 8 His findings show that the named individuals conspired, planned, and implemented the killing of the supporters of AKBAYAN Party-List (AKBAYAN), a rival of Bayan Muna and Gabriela. 9 Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe were AKBAYAN community organizers, 1 0 whereas Jimmy Peralta was mistaken for a certain Ricardo Peralta, an AKBAYAN supporter. 1 1

On July 18, 2008, Presiding Judge Evelyn A. AtienzaTurla (Judge Turla) issued an Order37 on the Palayan cases. Judge Turla held that “the proper procedure in the conduct of the preliminary investigation was not followed in [the Palayan] cases” 3 8 due to the following:

Judge Turla further held: In this case, the undue haste in filing of the information against movants cannot be ignored. From the gathering of evidence until the termination of the preliminary investigation, it appears that the state prosecutors were overly-eager to file the case and to secure a warrant of arrest of [petitioners] without bail and their consequent detention. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the task of ridding society of criminals and misfits and sending them to jail in the hope that they will in the future reform and be productive members of the community rests both on the judiciousness of judges and the prudence of the prosecutors. There is however, a standard in the determination of the existence of probable cause. The determination has not measured up to that standard in this case. 40

Turla- order to conduct PI

Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration 4 3 of th e July 18, 2008 Order, praying for the outright dismissal of the Palayan cases against them for lack of probable cause. 44 The Motion was denied by Judge Turla in an Order dated December 2, 2008. 4 5

Petitioners claim that they “have no plain, speedy[,] and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law[.]”48 They also contend that “[r]espondents’ actions will certainly cause grave and irreparable damage to [their] constitutional rights unless injunctive relief is afforded them through the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order[.]”49 They allege that Judge Turla acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction:

Petitioners claim that Judge Turla’s order of remanding the case back to the prosecutors had no basis in law, jurispru- 

dence, or the rules. Since she had already evaluated the evidence submitted by the prosecutors along with the Informations, she should have determined the existence of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants or the dismissal of the Palayan cases.51

On the allegation that Judge Turla reneged on her constitutional duty to determine probable cause, respondents counter that she did not abandon her mandate. 6 0 Her act of remanding the cases to the public prosecutors “is a confirmation of her observance of the wellsettled principle that such determination of probable cause is an exclusive executive function of the prosecutorial arm of our government.” 6 1 Furthermore, respondent prosecutors’ finding of probable cause is correct since evidence against petitioners show that more likely than not, they participated in the murder of the alleged victims. 6 2 The prosecutors’ finding is not a final declaration of their guilt. It merely engages them to trial. 6 3 

We resolve the following issues: First, whether petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts in bringing their petition directly before this Court;

This petition is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts. 

Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.—When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents. Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.

In First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management Corp. (PPMC), et al. , 7 1 this Court reiterated that it “will not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of certiorari.” 7 2 In this case, the presence of compelling circumstances warrants the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives. The possibility of their arrest and incarceration should the assailed Orders be affirmed, would affect their representation of their constituents in Congress. Although the circumstances mentioned are no longer present, the merits of this case necessitate this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.