GR 164715; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164715 ; September 20, 2006
ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, petitioner, vs. RAMON C. GONZALEZ, respondent.
FACTS
On August 11, 2000, Ramon Gonzalez was driving on the South Luzon Expressway when Arnel Alcaraz, driving another vehicle, suddenly swerved into his lane, forcing Gonzalez to swerve to avoid a collision. An altercation ensued, with Gonzalez shouting at Alcaraz. Alcaraz then drove alongside Gonzalez, raised a .38 caliber pistol, and fired twice at Gonzalez’s car. One bullet entered the right front door and exited the left rear door; a second hit the left rear window. Alcaraz was intercepted by tollway guards, who confiscated his firearm.
Gonzalez filed a criminal complaint for attempted homicide. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information. Alcaraz, in his counter-affidavit, admitted firing his gun but claimed he only intended to scare Gonzalez after being provoked by invectives and coins thrown at him, and because he believed Gonzalez was reaching for a firearm. The Secretary of Justice, on review, reversed the prosecutor, ordering the withdrawal of the Information on the ground that intent to kill was not sufficiently established.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reviewed and reversed the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice which found no probable cause for attempted homicide.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court nullified the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function vested in the prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice. Judicial review of the Secretary’s resolution is limited to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, solely on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Gonzalez’s petition for review under Rule 43, as this ordinary appeal was not the proper remedy.
The Secretary of Justice, exercising control and supervision over prosecutors, has the authority to affirm, reverse, modify, or nullify a prosecutor’s finding. His resolution is final, and the aggrieved party’s only recourse is a Rule 65 petition alleging grave abuse of discretion. Here, the Court of Appeals substituted its own judgment on the existence of probable cause, which is impermissible. It exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the substantive merits through an incorrect mode of appeal, rather than confining itself to whether the Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the finality of the Secretary of Justice’s Resolution.