G.R. No. 158543 ; July 21, 2004
ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN and RAINIER PUNZALAN, petitioners, vs. DENCIO DELA PEÑA and ROBERT CAGARA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a violent altercation between two groups of neighbors. On August 13, 1997, respondents Dencio dela Peña and Robert Cagara were allegedly assaulted by a group that included petitioners Rainier and Randall Punzalan. During the melee, a gun held by Cagara was grabbed by dela Peña and accidentally discharged, wounding Rainier Punzalan. This led to a series of cross-complaints. Rainier filed charges for Attempted Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearm. In retaliation, dela Peña and Cagara filed charges, including Attempted Murder against the Punzalans and Grave Oral Defamation specifically against Rosalinda Punzalan for allegedly offering a bribe to Cagara.
The Assistant City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against Rosalinda and the Attempted Murder charge. On appeal, the Secretary of Justice first modified this, ordering the filing of charges for Slight Oral Defamation and Attempted Homicide. However, upon motions for reconsideration, the Secretary of Justice reversed himself, directing the withdrawal of all informations against the petitioners, finding no malice in Rosalinda’s words and ruling that the allegations on Attempted Homicide should be threshed out in the already-pending case filed by Rainier.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the withdrawal of the criminal informations against the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the well-established principle of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, granting the public prosecutor broad discretion in determining probable cause. This discretion includes the power to determine the sufficiency of evidence to support the filing of an information. Judicial review is warranted only when such discretion is exercised in a capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner amounting to a grave abuse.
In this case, the Secretary’s findings were reasoned. For the oral defamation charge, he concluded Rosalinda’s statements were uttered in a state of shock and anger, negating malice. For the attempted homicide charge, he logically determined that the core factual issue—whether the shooting was accidental or intentional—was already the subject of the pending case filed by Rainier Punzalan, making a separate charge for the same incident premature and duplicative. The Secretary acted within his lawful authority to evaluate evidence and control the prosecution’s course. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed, and the Secretary of Justice’s resolution was reinstated.