Buan v. Matugas (2007, G.R. No. 161179)

 Facts: 

        Buan, an employee of the provincial government, alleged that Matugas, who was the governor at that time, attempted to rape her in 1995, during an allegedly work-related trip to Manila.

 

At that time, Buan’s mother advised her daughter to postpone the filing of the case since the respondent was still influential as a provincial governor. Finally in 2001, Buan filed a complaint, but the prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.

 

            The Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal holding that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed. As such, Matugas filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming grave abuse of discretion. CA reversed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. 

 

Issue: W/N the CA erred in concluding that the Sec of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when it found the existence of probable cause.

 

Held: The Secretary of Justice committed no grave abuse of discretion when it found the existence of probable cause. The CA, therefore, had erred in reversing the findings of the Secretary of Justice at this embryonic stage of the proceedings.

            

            It is the task of the public prosecutor to determine whether there is probable cause. As such, the CA is precluded, under the principle of separation of powers, from usurping the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive branch, the Department of Justice.

 

            Wisdom or error of judgment on the part of the Secretary of Justice in arriving at his conclusions of fact and law which is proper in an appeal cannot legitimately be the subject of review in a petition for certiorari before the CA because the decision of the Secretary of Justice is not appealable to the CA.

 

Moreover, the CA missed a crucial step: the trial proper. It had no business reviewing and weighing the evidence submitted, exercised appellate jurisdiction and stepped down to the role of becoming a trier of facts which is definitely uncalled for under the circumstances. Had the respondent been convicted by the trial court and an appeal therefrom taken to the CA, then the CA’s consideration of such matters as his defense of alibi would be proper, but not in a certiorari proceedings before it.

Doctrine:

-       Two grounds when the CA is empowered under its certiorari jurisdiction to annul and declare void the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice

o   lack of jurisdiction, and 

o   grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

-       there is grave abuse of discretion:

o   when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction

o   where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion andpersonal hostility

o   must be so patent or gross as to constitute an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law

-       The CA CANNOT reverse and set aside a decision of the Secretary of Justice and substitute its own judgment