G.R. No. 164715 Case Digest

G.R. No. 164715, September 20, 2006

Arnel Alcaraz, petitioner

vs Ramon Gonzalez, respondent

Ponente: Callejo, Sr.

Facts:

This is a petition for review of the decision of CA granting the petition for review of the resolution of the secretary of justice for attempted homicide as well as the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

August 11, 2000 around 10am, 61 year-old Gonzalez was driving his car along the right outermost lane of the south-luzon expressway on his way to makati city. Atty Alcaraz a customs collector of the Bureau of Customs, Batangas port was driving his car in the middle lane of south-luzon expressway between sucat and bicutan interchange on his way to manila from batangas city. He was armed with a 38 caliber pistol and had a mission order to expire on August 21, 2000. Since Alcarez intended to use the Skyway, he signaled and proceeded to the right-most lane reserved for the vehicles taking skyway.

Gonzalez was then forced to swerve his car to avoid collision with Alcarez and nearly hit the concrete island. Angree, Gonzalez chased after Alcaraz and shouted to Alcaraz through the open window. Alcaraz then raised his pistol to Gonzalez and fired twice hitting some parts of the car. Alcaraz hurriedly drove away but was intercepted by the PNCC guards of the Skyway toll gate and confiscated his pistol. Gonzalez reported the matter to the Paranaque city police station where he gave his statement to the police investigator and filed a criminal complaint for attemted homicide against Alcaraz. PNP examined Gonzalez's car then filed the criminal complaint later.

After the conducted inquest, an information was filed by the prosecutor's office with the MTC of Paranaque. On motion, the MTC ordered the city prosecutor to conduct PI.

In his counter affidavit, Alcaraz admitted firing his gun however alleged that Gonzalez opened his car window and prompted him to take his firearm. He also claimed that he had no intention to hit Gonzalez that's why he didn't aimed his gun to him. 

In his reply-affidavit, Gonzalez insisted that Alcaraz attempted to kill him. Gonzalez pointed it out that firing his gun is in effect an admission of intent to kill him.

The investigating prosecutor maintained his finding of a probable cause and retain the information. Alcaraz filed a motion of reconsideration but was denied, he then filed with DOJ, alleging that (1) the investigating prosecutor erred in giving serious considerations on complainant's theory on the trajectory of the bullet (2) investigating prosecutor erred in holding that he had the intent to kill the complainant (3) investigating prosecutor erred in giving wieght and credence on the allegations of complainant relative to the material points of the incident. On November 2001, DJ granted the petition and ordered the prosecutor to withdraw the information. On the grounds that Gonzalez failed to prove that Alcaraz has the intention to kill him, provided that Gonzalez has provoked Alcaraz.

Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. So, he filed a petition for review before CA, claiming that the DOj secretary acted beyond his authority in finding no probabale cause to charge and ordering to withdraw the information. He insisted that by invoking self-defense, Alcaraz thereby admitted his intention to kill him.

In his comment, Alcaraz averred that CA had no appellate jurisdiction over the petition and that Ginzalez had no legal standing to file the petition under Rule 43 of the rules of court; that justice secretary is not a quasi-judicial officer that may be reviewed by CA. On march 2004, CA granted the petition and reversing the assailed resolutions of the secretary of justice; based on the evidence on record, there was a probabale cause to file an information. 

Ruling: Petition is meritorious.

(1) we agree with the petitioner's contention that respondent resorted to an improper remedy when he filed a petition for review under rule 43, instead of filing a petition for certiorari under rule 65. the determination of the probable cause during PI is in the executive branch has full discretionary authority.The courts are not empowered to substitute the judgement of the secretary of justice or the prosecutor. (2) The resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such prosecutor.Thus, while the CA may review the resolution of the Justice Secretary, it may do so only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.