GR 164268; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164268; June 28, 2005
ARTEMIO T. TORRES, JR., Petitioner, vs. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO AGUINALDO & NELIA T. TORRES-AGUINALDO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent-spouses filed a complaint for falsification of public document against petitioner Artemio Torres, Jr. before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila. They alleged that titles to their properties were transferred to Torres through a forged 1979 Deed of Sale, executed without their knowledge. Torres countered, claiming the properties were legitimately sold to him via a 1991 Deed of Absolute Sale. The OCP found probable cause and filed an information before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC).
Torres appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the OCP’s finding and ordered the withdrawal of the information. The MTC granted the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the Secretary of Justice’s reversal. The CA granted the petition, reinstating the OCP’s resolution finding probable cause. Torres filed this petition for review.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the MTC order granting the withdrawal of the information rendered the CA petition moot; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the MTC’s order granting the withdrawal of the information did not render the case moot. A withdrawal of information, unlike a dismissal, does not operate as an adjudication on the merits and is without prejudice to refiling after reinvestigation. Therefore, the CA retained jurisdiction to review the propriety of the Secretary of Justice’s resolution.
However, on the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function. Judicial review is limited to assessing whether the executive agency committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The Secretary of Justice, in reversing the prosecutor, meticulously evaluated the conflicting evidence, including the validity of the 1991 Deed of Absolute Sale presented by Torres against the allegation of a forged 1979 deed. His finding of insufficient evidence to establish probable cause for falsification was a reasonable exercise of his discretionary authority. The Court of Appeals overstepped its certiorari jurisdiction by substituting its own judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse. Consequently, the Secretary’s resolution was reinstated.