GR 160316; (September, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160316 ; September 2, 2013
ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN AND RAINIER PUNZALAN, PETITIONERS, vs. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. PLATA AND RUBEN PLATA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The Punzalan and Plata families were neighbors in Mandaluyong City. An altercation occurred on August 13, 1997, when a group including petitioners Rainier and Randall Punzalan accosted Dencio dela Peña, a boarder of the Plata family. The confrontation escalated into a physical assault on dela Peña. During the melee, dela Peña obtained a gun from the Platas’ driver and, while wrestling for control of the firearm with respondent Michael Plata, the gun discharged and wounded Rainier Punzalan. The Punzalan group then chased dela Peña and others to the Plata residence, shouting threats.
Subsequently, cross-complaints were filed. Rainier filed a complaint for Attempted Homicide against Michael Plata. Meanwhile, the Plata group filed multiple criminal complaints against the Punzalans and others before the City Prosecutor for offenses including oral defamation, threats, attempted homicide, malicious mischief, and theft. The City Prosecutor dismissed all complaints for lack of merit. The Plata group appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Secretary initially reversed the prosecutor and directed the filing of charges, but upon a motion for reconsideration from the Punzalans, the DOJ reinstated the prosecutor’s dismissal. The Plata group then secured a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which annulled the DOJ’s reinstatement and ordered the filing of the informations.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting the petition for certiorari and annulling the resolutions of the DOJ Secretary which upheld the dismissal of the criminal complaints.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the DOJ resolutions. The Court held that the CA erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the DOJ Secretary. The power to control criminal prosecution, including the determination of probable cause, is primarily vested in the executive branch, specifically the public prosecutor and, ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. Judicial review of the DOJ’s findings via certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In this case, the DOJ Secretary’s conclusion—that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for the charged offenses—was based on a reasoned evaluation of the affidavits and evidence. The Court found that this conclusion was not arrived at whimsically, capriciously, or in a despotic manner. Mere error in judgment, if not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is not correctible by certiorari. The DOJ acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in finding the complaints dismissible. Therefore, the CA overstepped its bounds by annulling the DOJ’s resolutions, effectively conducting an unwarranted review of the executive’s discretionary act.