GR 140423; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140423 ; July 14, 2006
JOSE LUIS ANGEL B. OROSA, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO C. ROA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Luis Angel B. Orosa, a dentist, filed a libel complaint against respondent Alberto C. Roa, also a dentist, before the Pasig City Prosecution Office. The complaint stemmed from an article written by Roa and published in the Dental Trading Post, which discussed the potential for examination manipulation when a father, who was an examiner, had sons taking the same dental board exam. Orosa alleged the article defamed him as a topnotcher in the 1994 exams. The City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint, finding the article a privileged communication on a matter of public concern. Upon Orosa’s appeal, the Chief State Prosecutor reversed this and directed the filing of an Information for libel. Respondent Roa then appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the Chief State Prosecutor’s resolution and ordered the withdrawal of the Information. Orosa’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the proper mode to appeal a resolution of the Secretary of Justice directing the withdrawal of an information in a criminal case.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition. Rule 43 explicitly enumerates the quasi-judicial agencies whose final orders are appealable to the CA, and the Department of Justice or the Office of the Secretary of Justice is not included in this list. The Court emphasized that the Secretary of Justice, in reviewing a prosecutor’s resolution, exercises the constitutional power of control and supervision over prosecutors, not a quasi-judicial function. A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, aimed at determining probable cause, and does not constitute an exercise of adjudicatory or rule-making powers. Consequently, the Secretary’s resolution in such a context is not a quasi-judicial order appealable under Rule 43. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to oppose the Motion to Withdraw Information before the trial court, which had already acquired control over the criminal case. The trial court is competent to rule on the matter, making recourse to the CA premature.