G.R. No. 171536 Case Digest

G.R. No. 171536, April 7, 2009

April Jor Asetre, et.al., petitioners

vs June; Asetre, et.al., repondents

Ponente: Quisumbing

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of CA to reverse the decision of DOJ ordering the withdrawal of an information for parricide against April Asetre and for murder against others petitioners.

On December 27, 2000 Hanz Asetre, 26 year old, was found dead in his residence. Hanz wife April Asetre alleged that her husband committed suicide by hanging himself using bed covers. She said that her husband was depressed, alcoholic and drug dependent before they got married. And after Hanz mother died of cancer, he started writing letters expressing his desires to follow his mother, he was also depressed because of the debts he had inherited. He went to rehabilitation in Cebu but stayed there for 2 weeks only.

However, Junel Asetre, hanz brother claimed that the mark on Hanz's neck was not of the bed covers but of rope, also claiming that Buenaventure Gamboa knew who killed his brother but was reluctant to divulge. Hanz's sister claimed also that Hanz confided to her few days before the death that April issued checks without his knowing and that he died without reconciling his differences with April.

Office of the city prosecutor then found probable cause against April and the other accused based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the petitioners were physically and actively interacting with Hanz shortly before his death. It can also be gleaned that they connived to kill Hanz and later cover up the crime. The prosecutor rejected the claim for suicide because it is not consistent with the findings of medico-legal, claiming the possibility of murder (poison). The prosecutor recommended that murder charges under Article 248 of the RPC be filed against Ebcas and Gamboas and parricide charge under Article 246 of RPC be filed against April. The cases were filed with RTC Negros Occidental, Branch 50.

On November 26, 2001, the four accused asked DOJ for a review of the prosecutors' findings. DOJ acting secretary Guttierez absolved petitioners and reversed the investigating prosecutor's resolution because she did not find sufficient evidence to sustain the theory of the  prosecution of conspiracy to commit murder. Her reason are the following: (1) the prosecution failed to establish petitioners' motive to kill Hanz (2) alleged quarrel of the spouses is not substantive (3) April's actuations during the incident should not be taken against her as there is no standard human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange experience (4) her actuations of burning the bed covers, letters and opposition to the autopsy could not cost doubt on April's innocent intentions (5) the inconsistent testimonies of the other petitioners could not be taken against them because witnesses could witnessed the same incident with some different details. Accordingly, Guttierez directed the prosecutor to withdraw the information against petitioners.

Pursuant to the ruling, prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw information which was granted by the RTC on January 21, 2003. RTC also recalled the warrant of arrest and later denied the private respondents' motion for reconsideration in an order dated February 27, 2003.

On June 16, 2003, Asetre siblings' motion for reconsideration of the secretary's order was denied by DOJ. So, they filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before CA arguing that DOJ secretary with grave abuse of discretion.

CA found that DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the investigating prosecutor's findings of probable cause. According to CA, the facts and circumstances of the case strongly showed a reasonable ground of suspicion. The medico-legal result were credible, impartial and unbiased. In addition, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case until its termination when an information has already been filed. CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration thus this petition before us.

Issues: (1) Whether the opinions of the petitioners that Asetre did not commit suicide have sufficient in weight as to the direct testimonies of the other party. (2) Whether the conclusions of CA is supported by sufficient evidence. (3) Whether the secretary of justice committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded his jurisdiction. (4) Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the private respondents should have been dismissed considering that the RTC was not revealed by the private respondents in their petition for certiorari in their disclaimer of forum shopping.

Ruling: Petition is with merit.

(1) A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal actions.  He is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice as Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides. The full discretionary authority to determine probable cause in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of information rests with the executive branch.  Hence, judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limited to a determination whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  As department head, the Secretary of Justice has the power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.  It is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) Secretary deserves more credence than that of the CA because: (a) the doctors were not forensic experts, they never impugned that it was improbable for the deceased to commit suicide or not (b) Hanz was obese, the absence of an upward direction of the bed cover around his neck may not be probable to prove that he hang himself (c) conspiracy was not supported by any evidence on record.