GR 169026; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169026 ; June 15, 2006
FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION and SHIG KATAYAMA, Petitioners, vs. HON. HERNANDO B. PEREZ, in his capacity as the SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RAMON P. JACINTO, JAIME C. COLAYCO, ANTONIO P. TAYAO, and GLICERIO PEREZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Shig Katayama, a stockholder and director of petitioner First Women’s Credit Corporation (FWCC), filed a criminal complaint-affidavit with the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office against private respondents for various offenses. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause for falsification of private documents and grave coercion, leading to the filing of corresponding Informations. Private respondents appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the finding and directed the withdrawal of the Informations, a decision upheld upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice. The CA dismissed the petition, affirming the Secretary’s resolutions. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion, holding that the determination of probable cause is an executive function. Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the investigating prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and ordering the withdrawal of the Informations.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function vested in the public prosecutor and, ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. Judicial review of such executive determinations is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to an evasion of a positive duty or a refusal to act under the law.
The Court examined the Secretary’s resolution and found no such abuse. The Secretary applied basic precepts of criminal law to the facts and evidence on record, providing clear and sufficient reasons for his conclusion. Even assuming the Secretary made erroneous inferences of fact or law, such errors do not automatically constitute grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners’ arguments essentially questioned the Secretary’s appreciation of the evidence, which involves a non-jurisdictional error not reviewable by certiorari. Since no grave abuse of discretion was present, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.