G.R. No. 165412 , May 30, 2011
George Miller, Petitioner, vs. Secretary Hernando B. Perez, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice and Giovan Bernardino, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner George Miller, a British inmate at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), wrote confidential letters in November and December 1998 to the NBP Superintendent reporting alleged drug trading activities of inmates Giovan Bernardino and Rodolfo Bernardo. On January 6, 1999, while at the NBP Medium Security Compound, Miller was struck on the head from behind. He identified his assailant as inmate Constantino Quirante. An investigation by prison authorities found that, based on the sworn statement of Miller and the verbal admissions of Quirante and inmate Roberto Ceballos, Bernardino and Bernardo had confronted Miller about the letters and threatened him. Quirante and Ceballos admitted that they were hired by Bernardino and another inmate, Ace Aprid, for P1,500 to kill Miller, with Quirante as the assailant and Ceballos as the lookout. The case was endorsed to the City Prosecutor, who initially found insufficient evidence against Bernardino and Bernardo and recommended filing an Information for Attempted Murder only against Quirante. Subsequently, on April 14, 1999, Quirante and Ceballos executed a joint sworn affidavit before the prosecutor reiterating that Bernardino and Bernardo hired them through their commander, Rodrigo Toledo, to assault Miller. Toledo also executed a sworn affidavit corroborating their statements. Based on these new affidavits, the prosecutor filed a motion to admit a supplemental information to include Bernardino and Bernardo as co-accused, which the trial court granted. However, Bernardino filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the prosecutor’s resolution and ordered Bernardino’s exclusion from the information, citing inconsistencies in the affidavits and lack of credible evidence. Miller’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Miller then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice. Miller elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exclusion of respondent Giovan Bernardino from the Information for attempted murder.

RULING

No, the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Justice. The Court held that the Secretary of Justice has the authority to review resolutions of prosecutors and reverse them if he finds that the evidence is insufficient to support a prima facie case. In this instance, the Secretary correctly found that the affidavits of Quirante, Ceballos, and Toledo were inconsistent and unreliable. The affidavits contained material discrepancies, such as who initially approached the assailants (Aprid and Bernardino vs. Toledo) and the specific location and timing of the planning. The Secretary also noted the affiants’ motives of revenge due to non-payment and their status as convicted criminals, which affected their credibility. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, the inquiry is limited to whether the public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Secretary’s evaluation of the evidence and conclusion that it was insufficient to establish probable cause against Bernardino was a judgment call within his discretionary authority and was supported by the record. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed resolution. The petition was denied.