G.R. No. 191718 , May 10, 2021
RAMON H. DEBUQUE, PETITIONER, VS. MATT C. NILSON, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Matt C. Nilson filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Syndicated Estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against petitioner Ramon H. Debuque and others (Atty. Ignacio D. Debuque, Jr., Margarita H. Debuque, Antonio H. Debuque, Manuel Litonjua Yap, and Luz Litonjua Yap). Nilson alleged that Atty. Debuque, acting on behalf of the other accused, induced him to invest money in a business venture and purchase commercial lots, promising shares of stock in Investa Land Corporation (ILC) equivalent to his loans and investments. Nilson paid substantial sums but never received the promised shares or a return of his funds. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 against all accused. The Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially reversed this, ordering the filing of an Information for Estafa only against Atty. Debuque, but later reinstated the City Prosecutor’s Joint Resolution after a motion for reconsideration. Upon a second motion for reconsideration, the DOJ Secretary again reversed himself, finding probable cause only for Estafa against Atty. Debuque and directing the withdrawal of the Syndicated Estafa case against the other accused, including Ramon. Nilson filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted it, reinstating the City Prosecutor’s Joint Resolution that found probable cause for Syndicated Estafa against all accused. Ramon filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the DOJ Secretary’s August 23, 2007 Resolution and reinstating the City Prosecutor’s May 10, 2006 Joint Resolution, which found probable cause for Syndicated Estafa against Ramon H. Debuque and the other accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in his August 23, 2007 Resolution by disregarding the established rule that in a petition for review, the DOJ’s role is limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction committed by the public prosecutor. The DOJ Secretary improperly re-evaluated the evidence and substituted his own judgment on the existence of probable cause, which is the public prosecutor’s domain. The City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for Syndicated Estafa was based on evidence that the accused, as shareholders and officers of ILC (collectively owning 75% of its shares), were aware of and participated in the scheme by refusing to issue shares to Nilson despite his investments and by filing a dilatory complaint for declaratory relief. The DOJ Secretary’s finding of a lack of conspiracy was a factual determination beyond the scope of a petition for review. Therefore, the CA correctly reinstated the City Prosecutor’s Joint Resolution.