G.R. No. 160316.  September 2, 2013.

ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN and

RAINIER PUNZALAN, petitioners, vs. MICHAEL
GAMALIEL J. PLATA and RUBEN PLATA, respondents.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Preliminary

Investigation; Prosecutors; The conduct of preliminary
investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of
probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor.
—The well-established rule is that the conduct of preliminary
investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of
probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor.
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action.—All criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor.
In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the
event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the
Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the
criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn. The prosecution of crimes lies with the executive
department of the government whose principal power and
responsibility is to see that the laws of the land are faithfully
executed. “A necessary component of this power to execute the
laws is the right to prosecute their violators.” Succinctly, the
public prosecutor is given a broad discretion to determine whether
probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to
have committed the crime and should be held for trial.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court considers it a sound
judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of
preliminary investigations and to leave the Department of Justice
a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of what
constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the
prosecution of the

_______________
 * THIRD DIVISION.

427

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 427

Punzalan vs. Plata

supposed offenders.—The Court considers it a sound judicial

policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary
investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion
in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to
establish probable cause for the prosecution of the supposed
offenders. The rule is based not only upon the respect for the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution
to the executive department but upon practicality as well.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court will not interfere in
the findings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary on the
insufficiency of the evidence presented to establish probable cause
unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear
case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.—The rule is that this Court will not interfere in the
findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the evidence
presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the
questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of
discretion, thus “means such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The party
seeking the writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ
Secretary exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and
despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would
amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Law Firm of Perlas, De Guzman & Partners for
petitioners.

MENDOZA,  J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
September 29,
 428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

2003 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP

No. 62633, which annulled and set aside the June 6, 20002
and October 11, 20003 Resolutions of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and reinstated its (DOJ’s) March 23, 2000
Resolution4 ordering the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
City to file separate informations charging the petitioners,
Rosalinda Punzalan (Rosalinda), Rainier Punzalan
(Rainier), Randall Punzalan (Randall) and several other
individual with various offenses — three (3) counts of
Slight Oral Defamation against petitioner Rosalinda
Punzalan (Rosalinda); two (2) counts of Light Threat
against Alexander “Toto” Ofrin; Attempted Homicide
against Alexander “Toto” Ofrin, petitioners Rainier and
Randall, Jose Gregorio Lanuzo, Avelino Serrano, Lito Dela
Cruz, Emmanuel Nobida, Mark Catap, Ricky Eugenio,
Alejandro Diez, Vicente Joven Manda, Herson Mendoza,
Mark Labrador, Alex Pascua, Edwin Vivar, and Raymond
Poliquit; and Malicious Mischief and Theft against
petitioners Rainier and Randall, Mark Catap, Alejandro
Diez, Jose Fregorio Lanuzo, Alexander “Toto” Ofrin,
Herson Mendoza, Emmanuel Nobida, Edwin Vivar, Avelino
“Bobby” Serrano, and John Does.
The basic facts as found by the Court in G.R. No.
158543,5 are as follows:

The Punzalan and the Plata families were neighbors in

Hulo Bliss, Mandaluyong City. At around

_______________
1  Rollo, pp. 38-46. Penned by Associate Justice Elvie John S. Asuncion and
concurred in by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and then Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court)
2 Id., at pp. 123-127.
3 Id., at pp. 140-143.
4 Id., at pp. 95-104.
5  Entitled “Rosalinda Punzalan, Randall Punzalan and Rainier Punzalan v.
Dencio Dela Peña and Robert Cagara, 478 Phil. 771; 434 SCRA 601 (2004).

429

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 429

Punzalan vs. Plata
 11:00 p.m. of August 13, 1997, Dencio dela Peña, a house
boarder of the Platas, was in front of a store near their
house when the group of Rainier Punzalan, Randall
Punzalan, Ricky Eugenio, Jose Gregorio, Alex “Toto” Ofrin,
and several others arrived. Ricky Eugenio shouted at Dela
Peña, “Hoy, kalbo, saan mo binili ang sumbrero mo?” Dela
Peña replied, “Kalbo nga ako, ay pinagtatawanan pa ninyo
ako.” Irked by the response, Jose Gregorio slapped Dela
Peña while Rainier punched him in the mouth. The group
then ganged up on him. In the course of the melee,
somebody shouted, “Yariin na ‘yan!” Thereafter, Alex “Toto”
Ofrin kicked Dela Peña and tried to stab him with a
balisong but missed because he was able to run. The group
chased him.
While Dela Peña was fleeing, he met Robert Cagara, the
Platas’ family driver, who was carrying a gun. He grabbed
the gun from Cagara and pointed it to the group chasing
him in order to scare them. Michael Plata, who was nearby,
intervened and tried to wrestle the gun away from Dela
Peña. The gun accidentally went off and hit Rainier
Punzalan on the thigh. Shocked, Dela Peña, Cagara and
Plata ran towards the latter’s house and locked themselves
in. The group ran after them and when they got to the
Platas’ house, shouted, “Lumabas kayo d’yan, putang ina
ninyo! Papatayin namin kayo!” Dela Peña, Cagara, and
Plata left the house through the back door and proceeded to
the police station to seek assistance.

Thereafter, Rainier filed a criminal complaint for

Attempted Homicide against Michael Gamaliel Plata
(Michael) and one for Illegal Possession of Firearms
against Robert Cagara (Cagara). On the other hand,
Michael, Ruben Plata (Ruben) and several others filed
several complaints against petitioners Rosalinda, Randall,
Rainier, and several individuals before the Office of the
City Prosecutor, Mandaluyong City, to wit:
430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

Investigation Charge Parties

Slip No.

(I.S. No.)

 97-11485 Slight Roberto Cagara v. Randal

Physical Punzalan, Avelino Serrano,
Injuries Raymond Poliguit, Alex “Toto”
Ofrin, Alejandro Diez, Jose
Gregorio Lanuzo, Mark Catap,
Vicente “Joven” Manda, Mark
Labrador and Herson Mendoza
97-11487 Grave Oral Michael Gamaliel J. Plata v.
Defamation
Rosalinda Punzalan
97-11492 Grave Michael Gamaliel J. Plata v.
Threats Rosalinda Punzalan
97-11520 Grave Dencio Del Peña v. Alex “Toto”
Threats Ofrin
97-11521 Grave Dencio Dela Peña v. Alex “Toto”
Threats Ofrin
97-11522 Grave Oral Dencio Dela Peña v. Rosalinda
Defamation
Punzalan
97-11523 Grave Oral Robert Cagara v. Rosalinda
Defamation
Punzalan
97-11528 Attempted Dencio Dela Peña v. Alexander
Murder
“Toto” Ofrin, Rainier Punzalan,
Jose Gregorio Lanuzo, Avelino
Serrano, Lito Dela Cruz,
Emmanuel Nibida, Randal
Punzalan, Mark Catap, Ricky
Eugenio, Alejandro Diez,
Vincente “Koven” Manda,
Herson Mendoza,

431

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 431

Punzalan vs. Plata

    Mark Labrador, Alex Pascua, Edwin

Vivar and Raymond Poliquit
97- Grave Oral Roland Curampes and Robert Cagara v.
11764 Defamation
Avelino Serrano, Randal Punzalan,
Emmanuel Nobida, Herson Mendoza,
Alejandro Diez, Raymond Poliquit, Alex
Pascua, Rainier Punzalan, Alexander
“Toto” Ofrin and Edwin Vivar
97- Malicious Michael Gamaliel J. Plata v. Avelino
11765 Mischief
Serrano, Randal Punzalan, Emmanuel
Nobida, Herson Mendoza, Alejandro Diez,
Rainier Punzalan, Alexander “Toto”
Ofrin, Edwin Vivar, Mark Catap, Joven
Manda and Jose Gregorio Lanuzo
97- Robbery Michael Gamaliel J. Plata v. Avelino
11766 Serrano, Randal Punzalan, Emmanuel
Nobida, Herson Mendoza, Alejandro Diez,
Rainier Punzalan, Alexander “Toto”
 Ofrin, Edwin Vivar, Mark Catap, Vicente
“Joven” Manda and Jose Gregorio Lanuzo
97- Grave Oral Michael Gamaliel J. Plata v. Rosalinda
11786 Defamation
Punzalan

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

On July 28, 1998, the Office of the City Prosecutor, in its

Joint Resolution,6 dismissed the complaints filed against
the petitioners for lack of sufficient basis both in fact and in
law, giving the following reasons:

The investigation and affidavits of all parties reveal that

the above cases have no sufficient basis. First, as regards
the Grave Oral Defamation charges against Rosalinda
Punzalan allegedly committed on the 13th of August 1997
and 16th of October 1997 (I.S. Nos. 97-11487, 97-11786; 97-
11522 and 97-11523), the alleged defamatory statements
are not supported by any evidence to prove that they would
‘cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person
(Article 359, Revised Peñal Code), which are essential
requisites of Grave Oral Defamation. Complainants
presented no evidence aside from their claims to prove their
cases; hence, insufficient. Further, the records show that
the alleged defamatory statements were made by
respondent during the scheduled hearing of one of the above
case, which even if true, must have been said while in a
state of distress caused by the filing of the above numerous
cases filed against her family, hence, not actionable. The
same also holds true with the other Oral Defamation and
Grave Threat charges allegedly committed on October 21,
1997 by Avelino Serrano and 15 other persons including the
sons of Rosalinda Punzalan named Randal and Rainier
against Roberto Cagara and Ronald Curampes (I.S. No.
11764), the alleged defamatory statements are not
supported by any evidence that would cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person neither would
such utterances constitute an act which may fall under the
definition of ‘Grave Threat’ which complainant’s claimed
against them because such utterances do not amount to a
crime.
‘Merely insulting or abusive words are not
actionable, unless they constitute defamation
punishable by law (Isidro vs. Acuna, 57
 _______________
6 CA Rollo, pp. 28-35.

433

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 433

Punzalan vs. Plata

O.G. 3321) as to make the party subject to disgrace,

ridicule or contempt or affect one injuriously in his
office, profession, trade or occupation (People vs.
Perez, 11 CA Rep. 207).’
Moreover, the elements of ‘PUBLICATION’ is not alleged
nor proved by complainants, hence, not applicable.
‘The only element of grave oral defamation not
found in intriguing against honor is publication’
(People vs. Alcosaba, 30 April 1964)
As regards the case of Attempted Murder (I.S. No. 97-
11528) allegedly committed on 13 August 1997 by Ranier
Punzalan, et al., the same is already the subject of other two
(2) criminal cases docketed as Crim. Case No. 66879 and
66878 entitled ‘People vs. Michael Plata’ for Attempted
Homicide and ‘People vs. Roberto Cagara’ for Illegal
Possession of Firearm, respectively, both pending before
Branch 60, MTC of Mandaluyong; hence, cannot be the
subject of another case, conformably with the foregoing
pronouncement of the high court:
xxxx
In the case at bar, what is undisputed is that RAINIER
sustained a gunshot wound in his thigh for which reason he
filed a case of frustrated murder and illegal possession of
firearms. The version of Michael Plata and Dencio Dela
Peña (the defendants in said two cases) is that the latter
was seen by Plata and Cagara while Dencio was being
mauled by RAINIER, et al., thereby compelling Plata and
Cagara to go out of Plata’s house and defend Dencio. Dencio
run towards Plata and Cagara and took the gun out of
Cagara’s hand and aimed the gun at RAINIER, et al. which,
in turn, forced Plata to grapple with Cagara to prevent
Cagara from hurting anyone but unfortunately, the gun
accidentally fired and hit RAINIER in the thigh.
Thus, whether the shooting of RAINIER arose from
Plata’s and Cagara’s attempt to defend Dencio from the
mauling by Rainier, et al. or from an accident, the ele-

434

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Punzalan vs. Plata

ments of these justifying (defense of strangers) and

exempting circumstances (accident) should properly be
established WITH CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE NOT in the attempted murder case filed
against RAINIER, et., al. by Dencio but in the attempted
homicide case filed against Michael Plata by RAINIER,
there being a clear admission as to the fact of shooting
which wounded RAINIER who filed a frustrated murder
case but was eventually downgraded to attempted homicide.
With regard to the alleged robbery (I.S. no. 97-11766)
which was allegedly committed on the same date as the
malicious mischief (I.S. No. 97-11765), these two (2) cases
cannot be the product of the same criminal act for some
element of one may be absent in the other, particularly
“animus lucrandi.” Further, it is noted that the complainant
in the robbery case, who is the same complainant in the
malicious mischief (Michael Plata), use the very “same
affidavit” for the two (2) different charges with no other
obvious intention aside from harassing the respondents.
As regards the claim of Slight Physical Injuries (I.S.
No. 97-11485), it appears on the affidavit of the
complainants, Robert Cagara (“CAGARA”) and Dencio Dela
Peña (“DENCIO”), that they have conflicting statements
which were not properly explained during the investigation.
According to Cagara, he and Dencio were standing near the
gate of the Platas ‘bandang looban’ and it was the house
which was stoned and Cagara was accidentally hit by one of
these stones which were aimed at the house and not at him;
however, in Dencio’s affidavit, he claimed that Randal
Punzalan hit Cagara on the shoulder with a bottle while the
latter himself did not even mention this in his own affidavit.
These inconsistencies belied their claim. Moreover, it is
noted that the complaint for Slight Physical Injuries was
filed belatedly (10 October 1997), more than a month after
the commission of the alleged act on 30 August 1997 and
that the Medical Certificate of Cagara was issued much
later (15 October 1997) from the commission of the alleged
injuries and Cagara did not even bother to explain this in
his affidavit.

435

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 435

Punzalan vs. Plata
 As regards the charge of Grave Threat (I.S. No. 97-
11492, 97-11520 and 97-11521), there is no act which may
fall under the definition of “grave threat” because the
utterances claimed do not amount to a crime. Further, in
I.S. No. 97-11492, the alleged threat was made through
telephone conversations and even to the complainant
himself, hence, they did not pose any danger to the life and
limbs nor to the property of the complainant.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above cases are
hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient basis in fact and in
law.7 [Emphases supplied]

The complainants in I.S. Nos. 97-11487, 97-11523, 97-

11786, 97-11520, 97-11521, 97-11528, 97-765, and 11-766
filed their separate petitions8 before the DOJ. On March
23, 2000, the DOJ modified the July 28, 1998 Joint
Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor and ordered
the filing of separate informations for Slight Oral
Defamation, Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious
Mischief, and Theft against Rosalinda, Rainier, Randall
and the other respondents in the above cases. The latter
filed a motion for reconsideration,9 dated April 28, 2000.
Upon review, the DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled
that there was no probable cause. In its Resolution, dated
June 6, 2000, the DOJ set aside its March 23, 2000
Resolution and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to
withdraw the informations.
Not in conformity, the complainants moved for a
reconsideration of the June 6, 2000 Resolution but the DOJ
denied the motion in its Resolution, dated October 11,
2000.
On January 11, 2001, the complainants elevated the
matter to the CA by way of certiorari ascribing grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary which
ordered the

_______________
7 Id., at pp. 32-35.
8 Id., at pp. 36-44, 45-52.
9 Id., at pp. 93-103.

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata
withdrawal of the separate informations for Slight Oral
Defamation, Other Light Threats, Attempted Homicide,
Malicious Mischief and Theft.
On September 29, 2003, the CA annulled and set aside
the June 6, 2000 and October 11, 2000 Resolutions of the
DOJ and reinstated its March 23, 2000 Resolution. In the
said decision, the CA explained that:

In the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the main

purpose of the same is to determine “whether a crime has
been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof,” (Tandoc vs.
Resultan, 175 SCRA 37). Based on the records We hold that
probable cause exists in the subject complaints.
Re: the complaints filed for malicious mischief and theft,
We hold that said complaints had sufficient basis. Contrary
to the second ruling of the Secretary of Justice that there
was lack of eye witnesses to support the alleged act
constituting the complaint, there were persons who claimed
to have seen the respondents as they were running away
from the place of incident. The joint affidavit of witnesses
Rolando Curampes and Robert Cagara attest and
corroborate the allegations in the complaint. Further the
circumstances surrounding the incident as well as the
presence of the defendants in the scene of the crime yield to
strong presumption that the latter may have had some
participation in the unlawful act. Since there was positive
identification of the alleged malefactors, the complaints
should not be dismissed, and trial should proceed to allow
for the presentation of evidence in order for the court to
determine the culpability or non-culpability of the alleged
transgressors.
As regards the complaints for oral defamation, the
Secretary of Justice belatedly maintains that said
complaints had no basis and that the evidence presented
was not sufficient considering that the alleged defamatory
words were uttered in a state of shock and anger. We,
however, rule otherwise.

437

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 437

Punzalan vs. Plata

The complaints for oral defamation were filed based on

three separate occasions whereupon the respondent
Rosalinda Punzalan by harsh and insulting words casted
aspersions upon the person of Michael Plata in the presence
of other people. To say that the words thus uttered were not
 malicious and were only voiced because of shock and anger
is beyond disbelief since respondent Punzalan could not
have been in a state of shock in all three separate occasions
when such remarks were made. And even if such remarks
were made in the heat of anger, at the very least the act
still constitutes light oral defamation.
Likewise, the complaint against Ofrin was not without
basis since the supporting affidavits submitted and the
allegation of the complainant positively identifying
defendant Ofrin as the culprit, were sufficient to establish
probable cause. That there were other persons who
allegedly did not see any fighting that day and time when
the incident took place, was not sufficient reason to dismiss
the said complaint for lack of basis. The positive
identification made by the witnesses for the complainant
must be given credence over the bare denials made by
respondents. “Alibi and denial are inherently weak and
could not prevail over the positive testimony of the
complainant” (People v. Panlilio, 255 SCRA 503).
From the above discussions, We find that the Secretary
of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when he
issued the assailed June 6, 2000 Resolution where he
reversed himself after finding earlier, in his March 23, 2000
Resolution that:
xxxx
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Resolutions
of the Secretary of Justice dated June 6, 2000 and October
11, 2000 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice dated March 23, 2000
(Resolution No. 594, Series of 2000) is REINSTATED.

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

SO ORDERED.10

Hence, this petition filed by Rosalinda, Randal and

Rainier, anchored on the following:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1.  THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE AND SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN SETTING
ASIDE THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE DATED JUNE 6, 2000 AND
OCTOBER 11, 2000.
2.  THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE
REMARKS MADE BY PETITIONER ROSALINDA
PUNZALAN CONSTITUTE SLIGHT ORAL DEFAMATION.
3.  THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF
RESPONDENTS’ WITNESSES, ROLANDO CURAMPES
AND ROBERT CAGARA, ARE SUFFICIENT BASES FOR
PROSECUTING PETITIONERS RANDALL AND RAINIER
PUNZALAN FOR MALICIOUS MISCHIEF AND THEFT.11

In essence, the petitioners argue that the determination

of the existence of probable cause is lodged with the
prosecutor, who assumes full discretion and control over
the complaint. They insist that the DOJ committed no
grave abuse of discretion when it issued the June 6, 2000
and October 11, 2000 Resolutions ordering the withdrawal
of the informations. In the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, they contend that the courts should not interfere
with the discretion of the prosecutor.
The Court finds the petition meritorious.

_______________
10 Rollo, pp. 42-45.
11 Id., at pp. 15-16.

439

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 439

Punzalan vs. Plata

The well-established rule is that the conduct of

preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining
the existence of probable cause is a function that belongs to
the public prosecutor.12 Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court, as amended,13 provides:

Section  5.  Who must prosecute criminal action.—All

criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work
schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case
subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to
prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall
continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in
the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is
revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
 The prosecution of crimes lies with the executive
department of the government whose principal power and
responsibility is to see that the laws of the land are
faithfully executed. “A necessary component of this power
to execute the laws is the right to prosecute their violators.”
Succinctly, the public prosecutor is given a broad discretion
to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge
those whom he believes to have committed the crime and
should be held for trial.14 In the case of Crespo v. Mogul,15
the Court ruled:

It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either

commenced by a complaint or by information shall

_______________
12 Paredes v. Calilung, 546 Phil. 198, 224; 517 SCRA 369, 394 (2007).
13 A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC.
14  SPO4 Soberano v. People of the Philippines, 509 Phil. 118, 132-133; 472
SCRA 125, 139-140 (2005).
15 235 Phil. 465; 151 SCRA 462 (1987).

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal.

The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the
complaint or information, follow or not follow that
presented by the offended party, according to whether the
evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for
placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and
control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded
prosecution by private persons. It cannot be controlled by
the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power
vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also
the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the
evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be
guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their
office. They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute
when after an investigation they become convinced that the
evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie
case.16

Consequently, the Court considers it a sound judicial

policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of
preliminary investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide
latitude of discretion in the determination of what
constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause
for the prosecution of the supposed offenders.17 The rule is
based not only upon the respect for the investigatory and
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the
executive department but upon practicality as well.18 As
pronounced by this Court in the separate opinion of then
Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in the case of Roberts, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals,19 

_______________
16 Id., at p. 472; pp. 467-468.
17 First Women’s Credit Corporation v. Perez, 524 Phil. 305, 308-309;
490 SCRA 774, 777 (2006).
18 Buan v. Matugas, 556 Phil. 110, 119; 529 SCRA 263, 270 (2007).
19 324 Phil. 568, 619-622; 254 SCRA 307, 349 (1996).

441

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 441

Punzalan vs. Plata

In this special action, this Court is being asked to

assume the function of a public prosecutor. It is being asked
to determine whether probable cause exists as regards
petitioners. More concretely, the Court is being asked to
examine and assess such evidence as has thus far been
submitted by the parties and, on the basis thereof, make a
conclusion as to whether or not it suffices to engender a well
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held
for trial.
It is a function that this Court should not be called upon
to perform. It is a function that properly pertains to the
public prosecutor, one that, as far as crimes cognizable by a
Regional Trial Court are concerned, and notwithstanding
that it involves adjudication process of a sort, exclusively
pertains, by law, to said executive officer, the public
prosecutor. It is moreover a function that in the established
scheme of things, is supposed to be performed at the very
genesis of, indeed, prefatorily to, the formal commencement
of a criminal action. The proceedings before a public
prosecutor, it may well be stressed, are essentially
preliminary, prefatory, and cannot lead to a final, definite
and authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of
the persons charged with a felony or crime.
 Whether or not that function has been correctly
discharged by the public prosecutor — i.e., whether or not
he had made a correct ascertainment of the existence of
probable cause in a case — is a matter that the trial court
itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
There is no provision of law authorizing an aggrieved party
to petition for a such a determination. It is not for instance
permitted for an accused, upon the filing of an information
against him by the public prosecutor, to preempt trial by
filing a motion with the Trial Court praying for the quashal
or dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the
evidence upon which the same is based is inadequate. Nor is
it permitted, on the antipodal theory that the evidence is in
truth adequate, for the complaining party to present a
petition before the Court

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

praying that the public prosecutor be compelled to file the

corresponding information against the accused.
Besides, the function this Court is asked to perform is
that of a trier of facts which it does not generally do, and if
at all, only exceptionally, as in an appeal in a criminal
action where the penalty of life imprisonment, reclusion
perpetua, or death has been imposed by a lower court (after
due trial, of course), or upon a convincing showing of
palpable error as regards a particular factual conclusion in
the judgment of such lower court.

Thus, the rule is that this Court will not interfere in the
findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the
evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is
shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.20 Grave abuse of discretion, thus “means such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.”21 The party seeking the
writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ Secretary
exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic
manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would
amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform
the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.22
In the present case, there was no clear evidence of grave
abuse of discretion committed by the DOJ when it set aside
its March 23, 2000 Resolution and reinstated the July 28,
1998 Resolution of the public prosecutor. The DOJ was
correct when it characterized the complaint for attempted
murder as

_______________
20  United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 156337,
September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 322, 330.
21  Aduan v. Chong, G.R. No. 172796, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 508,
514.
22  Auto Prominence Corporation v. Winterkorn, G.R. No. 178104,
January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 51, 61.

443

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 443

Punzalan vs. Plata

already covered by two (2) other criminal cases. As to the

other complaints, the Court agrees with the DOJ that they
were weak and not adequately supported by credible
evidence. Thus, the CA erred in supplanting the
prosecutor’s discretion by its own. In dismissing the
complaint of Michael and Ruben, the DOJ reasoned that:

Record reveals that Plata and Caraga instituted the

instant complaints against herein respondents only after
they were charged with attempted homicide and illegal
possession of firearms by respondent Rainier Punzalan.
Hence, it appears that the complaints are in the nature of
countercharges against respondents.
Indeed, as found by the investigating prosecutor, the
evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a finding
of probable cause against all of respondents for the
crimes charged. When Rosalinda Punzalan uttered the
alleged defamatory statements, she was in a state of anger
and shock considering that her son Rainier was injured in
an altercation between his group and that of Plata’s. Thus,
the circumstances surrounding the case show that she did
not act with malice. Besides, aside from complaints
allegations, there is nothing on record to prove that the
utterances were made within the hearing distance of third
parties.
Relative to the charge against Alexander “Toto” Ofrin,
there is likewise no corroborative evidence to show that
he drew a knife in a quarrel with Dela Peña. In
contradiction, respondents’ witnesses Ravina Mila Villegas
and Ruben Aguilar, Jr., who were not assailed as biased
 witnesses, stated that they did not see anyone fighting at
the time and in the place of the incident.
With respect to the charge of attempted homicide, the
allegations supporting the same should first be threshed out
in the full blown trial of the charge for attempted homicide
against Plata, wherein, the testimony of complainant Dela
Peña will be presented as part of the defense evidence.
Moreover, it bears stressing that aside from Dela Peña’s
allegations and the medical cer-

444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Punzalan vs. Plata

tificate obtained forty-five (45) days after the

mauling, there is no showing that respondents
intended to kill him.
Further, the charge for malicious mischief and theft are
also not supported by evidence. In the absence of
eyewitnesses who positively identified respondents as the
perpetrators of the crime the photographs submitted are
incompetent to indicate that respondents committed the
acts complained of. The respondents here were merely
charged on the basis of conjectures and surmises that they
may have committed the same due to their previous
altercations.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed
resolution is REVERSED. The resolution dated March 23,
2000 is set aside and the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
City is directed to withdraw the separate informations for
slight oral defamation, other light threats, attempted
homicide, malicious mischief, and theft against all
respondents and to report the action taken withim ten (10)
days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.23 [Emphases supplied]

Evidently, the conclusions arrived at by the DOJ were

neither whimsical nor capricious as to be corrected by
certiorari. Even on the assumption that the DOJ Secretary
made erroneous conclusions, such error alone would not
subject his act to correction or annulment by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari.24 After all, not “every
erroneous conclusion of law or fact is an abuse of
discretion.”25
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
September 29, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 62633 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
June 6,
 _______________
23 CA Rollo, pp. 79-80.
24  Insular Life Assurance Company, Limited v. Serrano, 552 Phil.
469,479; 525 SCRA 400, 406 (2007).
25 Estrada v. Desierto, 487 Phil. 169, 188; 445 SCRA 655, 674 (2004).

445

VOL. 704, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 445

Punzalan vs. Plata

2000 and the October 11, 2000 Resolutions of the

Department of Justice are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Notes.—A preliminary proceeding is not a quasi-judicial

function and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is not a
quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial function
when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor
regarding the presence of probable cause; The Supreme
Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the
conduct of preliminary investigations and leaves to the
investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in
the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as
will establish probable cause for the filing of information
against the supposed offender, except when there is grave
abuse of discretion. (Sy Tiong Shiou vs. Sy Chim, 582
SCRA 517 [2009])
The Secretary of Justice retains the power to review
resolutions of his subordinates even after the information
has already been filed in court; Nature of the power of
control of the Secretary of Justice over prosecutors was
explained in Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals (278 SCRA 656
[1997]). (Alawiya vs. Datumanong, 585 SCRA 267 [2009])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.