6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J.

Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.158543.July21,2004]

ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN and RAINIER PUNZALAN,

petitioners,vs.DENCIODELAPEAandROBERTCAGARA,respondents.

DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

AssailedinthispetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourtistheJune6,2002
[1]
Decision oftheCourtofAppealsanditsMay23,2003Resolutionwhichdeniedpetitionersmotion
forreconsideration.
ThePunzalanandthePlatafamilieswereneighborsinHuloBliss,MandaluyongCity.Ataround
11:00p.m.ofAugust13,1997,DenciodelaPea,ahouseboarderofthePlatas,wasinfrontofastore
near their house when the group of Rainier Punzalan, Randall Punzalan, Ricky Eugenio, Jose
Gregorio,AlexTotoOfrin,andseveralothersarrived.RickyEugenioshoutedatDelaPea,Hoy,kalbo,
[2]
saanmobiniliandsumbreromo? DelaPeareplied,Kalbongaako,aypinagtatawananpaninyoako.
[3]
Irked by the response, Jose Gregorio slapped Dela Pea while Rainier punched him in the mouth.
[4]
The group then ganged up on him. In the course of the melee, somebody shouted, Yariinnayan!
Thereafter,AlexTotoOfrinkickedDelaPeaandtriedtostabhimwithabalisongbutmissedbecause
hewasabletorun.Thegroupchasedhim.
WhileDelaPeawasfleeing,hemetRobertCagara,thePlatasfamilydriver,whowascarryinga
gun.HegrabbedthegunfromCagaraandpointedittothegroupchasinghiminordertoscarethem.
MichaelPlata,whowasnearby,intervenedandtriedtowrestlethegunawayfromDelaPea.Thegun
accidentallywentoffandhitRainierPunzalanonthethigh.Shocked,DelaPea,CagaraandPlataran
towardsthelattershouseandlockedthemselvesin.Thegroupranafterthemandwhentheygotto
[5]
thePlatashouse,shouted,Lumabaskayodyan,putanginaninyo!Papatayinnaminkayo! DelaPea,
Cagara,andPlataleftthehousethroughthebackdoorandproceededtothepolicestationtoseek
assistance.
As a result of the incident, Rainier Punzalan filed a criminal complaint against Michael Plata for
[6]
Attempted Homicide and against Robert Cagara for Illegal Possession of Firearm. In turn, Plata,
[7]
Cagara and Dela Pea filed several countercharges for grave oral defamation, grave threats,
robbery, malicious mischief and slight physical injuries against the Punzalans, including one for
Attempted Murder filed by Dela Pea against Rainier and Randall Punzalan and fourteen others (I.S.
No. 9711528) and one for Grave Threats filed by Dela Pea against Alex Toto Ofrin (I.S. No. 97
1152021).
[8]
Intheircounteraffidavit, thePunzalansarguedthatthechargesagainstthemwerefabricatedin
order to dissuade them from testifying in the Attempted Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearm
casesinstitutedbyRainieragainstPlataandCagara,respectively.
Subsequently,RobertCagaraalsofiledacomplaintforGraveOralDefamation,docketedasI.S.
No.9711522,againstRosalindaPunzalan,motherofRainier,allegingthatonOctober16,1997atthe
OfficeoftheProsecutorofMandaluyongCity,Rosalindaapproachedhim,andwithinhearingdistance

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 1/6
6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

of other people, told him, Hoy Robert, magkanong ibinigay ng mga Plata sa iyo sa pagtestigo?
[9]
Dodoblehinkoatipapasokpakitangtrabaho. Inherdefense,Rosalindadeniedhavingutteredthe
allegeddefamatorystatements.
OnJuly28,1998,theAssistantCityProsecutorofMandaluyongCitydismissedthecomplaintfor
[10]
Grave Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan, holding that Cagara failed to show that the
alleged defamatory statements would cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon him. He also found
[11]
thatthestatementswereutteredbyRosalindainastateofdistressand,hence,werenotactionable.
The charge of Attempted Murder against Rainier, Randall and 14 others was also dismissed by the
Assistant Prosecutor because complainant Dela Peas claim that he accidentally shot Rainier forms
partofthedefenseofMichaelPlataintheAttemptedHomicidecasepreviouslyfiledbyRainieragainst
[12]
thelatter.
DelaPeaandCagaraseparatelyappealedtotheDepartmentofJustice.OnMarch23,2000,then
JusticeSecretaryArtemioTuqueroissuedaResolutionmodifyingtheJuly28,1998JointResolutionof
theAssistantCityProsecutorbyordering,amongothers(1)thatthechargeofGraveOralDefamation
against Rosalinda Punzalan be downgraded to Slight Oral Defamation (2) that the charge of
AttemptedMurderagainstRainier,Randalland14othersbedowngradedtoAttemptedHomicideand
(3) that the charge of Grave Threats against Alex Toto Ofrin be downgraded to Other Light Threats.
ThedispositiveportionoftheResolutionreads:
WHEREFORE, the resolution is hereby MODIFIED. The City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City is
directedtofileinformationforthree(3)countsofslightoraldefamationagainstRosalindaPunzalan
information for two (2) counts [of] other light threats against Alexander Toto Ofrin information for
attempted homicide against Alexander Toto Ofrin, Rainier Punzalan, Jose Gregorio Lanuzo, Avelino
Serrano,LitodelaCruz,EmmanuelNobida,RandallPunzalan,MarkCatap,RickyEugenio,Alejandro
Diez, Vicente Joven Manda, Herson Mendoza, Mark Labrador, Alex Pascua, Edwin Vivar and
RaymondPoliquitinformationformaliciousmischiefandtheftagainstRainierPunzalan,MarkCatap,
Alejandro Diez, Jose Gregorio Lanuzo, Alexander Toto Ofrin, Herson Mendoza, Emmanuel Nobida,
EdwinVivar,AvelinoBobbySerrano,andJohnDoesandtoreportactiontakenwithin10daysfrom
receipthereof.
[13]
SOORDERED.
Petitioners, Rosalinda, Rainier and Randall Punzalan, together with their corespondents, filed
separatemotionsforreconsideration.OnJune6,2000,theSecretaryofJusticesetasidetheMarch
23, 2000 Resolution and directed the withdrawal of the Informations against the movants. He ruled,
among others, that the Oral Defamation case should be dismissed because the alleged defamatory
statementswereutteredwithoutmaliceasRosalindawastheninastateofshockandanger.Anent
theAttemptedHomicidecasefiledbyDelaPeaagainstRainier,theSecretaryheldthattheallegations
in support thereof should first be threshed out in the trial of the Attempted Homicide case filed by
Rainier against Michael Plata. He added that Dela Pea failed to prove that Rainier, Randall and his
companionsintendedtokillhim.Thedispositiveportionthereofreads:
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the appealed resolution is REVERSED. The resolution dated
March23,2000issetasideandtheCityProsecutorofMandaluyongCityisdirectedtowithdrawthe
separate informations for slight oral defamation, other light threats, attempted homicide, malicious
mischief and theft against all respondents and to report the action taken within ten (10) days from
receipthereof.
[14]
SOORDERED.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Resolution, but the same was
[15]
deniedinaResolutiondatedOctober11,2000.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 2/6
6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

OnJanuary11,2001,respondentsfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppealspraying
thattheCityProsecutorofMandaluyongbedirectedtofileonecountofSlightOralDefamationagainst
RosalindaonecountofAttemptedHomicideagainstRainier,Randalland14othersandtwocounts
[16]
ofOtherLightThreatsagainstAlexTotoOfrin.
OnJune6,2002,theCourtofAppealsrenderedjudgmentasfollows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisgrantedandthequestionedResolutionsofpublic
respondent dated 06 June 2000 and 11 October 2000 are set aside insofar as it directed the
withdrawal of informations for slight oral defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan and attempted
homicide against the respondents Alexander Toto Ofrin, Rainier Punzalan, Jose Gregorio Lanuzo,
AvelinoSerrano,LitodelaCruz,EmmanuelNobido,RandallPunzalan,MarkCatap,RickyEugenio,
Alejandro Diez, Vicente Joven Manda, Herson Mendoza, Mark Labrador, Alex Pascua, Edwin Vivar,
andRaymondPoliquit.
Theresolutiondated06June2000and11October2000isherebyaffirmedinsofarasitdirectedthe
withdrawalofinformationfortwo(2)countsofotherlightthreatsagainstAlexanderTotoOfrin.
[17]
SOORDERED.
[18]
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition raising the
followingassignmentoferrors:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICEDATEDJUNE6,2000ANDOCTOBER11,2000.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENTEVIDENCETOSHOWTHAT,MORELIKELYTHANNOT,SLIGHTORALDEFAMATION
HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND WAS COMMITTED BY HEREIN PETITIONER ROSALINDA
PUNZALAN.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF RESPONDENTS AND THEIR WITNESSES, WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN
WEIGHT,ARESUFFICIENTTOPROVEINTENTTOKILLSUCHTHATPETITIONERSRANDALLL
[19]
ANDRAINIERPUNZALANMUSTBEPROSECUTEDFORATTEMPTEDHOMICIDE.
Theissuetoberesolvedinthispetitioniswhetherornotthereissufficientevidencetosustaina
finding of probable cause against petitioner Rosalinda Punzalan for Slight Oral Defamation and
againstpetitionersRandallandRainierPunzalanforAttemptedHomicide.
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
The pertinent law in relation to this case is Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
Section1.Petitionforcertiorari.Whenanytribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialorquasijudicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amountingtolackorexcessofitsorhisjurisdiction,andthereisnoappeal,oranyplainspeedy,and
adequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw,apersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetition
inthepropercourt,allegingthefactswithcertaintyandprayingthatjudgmentberenderedannullingor
modifyingtheproceedingsofsuchtribunal,boardorofficer,andgrantingsuchincidentalreliefsaslaw
andjusticemayrequire.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 3/6
6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

Apetitionforcertiorariistheproperremedywhenanytribunal,board,orofficerexercisingjudicial
or quasijudicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy at law. Where the error is in the judges findings and conclusions or to cure
[20]
erroneousconclusionsoflawandfact,appealistheremedy.
Lackofjurisdictionandexcessofjurisdictionaredistinguishedthus:therespondentactswithout
jurisdiction if he does not have the legal power to determine the case where the respondent, being
clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law, he is
[21]
performing a function in excess of his jurisdiction. In the case of Meat Packing Corp. v.
[22]
Sandiganbayan, it was held that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an
arbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonalhostility,anditmustbesopatentand
grossastoamounttoanevasionofpositivedutyenjoinedortoactatallincontemplationoflaw.Itis
not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion such abuse must be
[23]
grave.
We now resolve whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in his
ResolutionsdatedJune6,2000andOctober11,2000.UndertheRevisedAdministrativeCode,the
Secretary of Justice exercises the power of direct control and supervision over the decisions or
resolutionsoftheprosecutors.Supervisionandcontrolincludestheauthoritytoactdirectlywhenever
aspecificfunctionisentrustedbylaworregulationtoasubordinatetodirecttheperformanceofduty
[24]
andtoapprove,reviseormodifyactsanddecisionofsubordinateofficialsorunits.
[25]
In the case of People v. Peralta, we reiterated the rule that the right to prosecute vests the
prosecutor with a wide range of discretion the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the
exerciseofwhichdependsonavarietyoffactorswhicharebestappreciatedbyprosecutors.Likewise,
[26]
inthecaseofHegertyv.CourtofAppeals, wedeclaredthat:
A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a criminal information
wherenoclearlegaljustificationhasbeenshown,andnosufficientevidenceofguiltnorprimafacie
casehasbeenpresentedbythepetitioner.
Weneedonlytostressthatthedeterminationofprobablecauseduringapreliminaryinvestigationor
reinvestigation is recognized as an executive function exclusively of the prosecutor. An investigating
prosecutor is under no obligation to file a criminal action where he is not convinced that he has the
quantumofevidenceathandtosupporttheaverments.Prosecutingofficershaveequallythedutynot
toprosecutewhenafterinvestigationorreinvestigationtheyareconvincedthattheevidenceadduced
was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Thus, the determination of the persons to be
prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge of this
function.
Thus,thequestionofwhetherornottodismissacomplaintiswithinthepurviewofthefunctionsof
theprosecutorand,ultimately,thatoftheSecretaryofJustice.
The reasons of the Secretary of Justice in directing the City Prosecutor to withdraw the
informationsforslightoraldefamationagainstRosalindaPunzalanandforattemptedhomicideagainst
theotherrespondentsotherthanRosalindaPunzalanisdeterminativeofwhetherornothecommitted
graveabuseofdiscretion.
First,inthechargeofslightoraldefamation,therecordsshowthatthedefamatoryremarkswere
uttered within the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City. The Court of Appeals in its
DecisiondatedJune6,2002statedthesettledrulethattheassessmentofthecredibilityofwitnesses
is best left to the trial court in view of its opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the
witnesses on the stand. The City Prosecutor, the proper officer at the time of the occurrence of the
incident,isthebestpersontoobservethedemeanorandconductofthepartiesandtheirwitnesses
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 4/6
6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

and determine probable cause whether the alleged defamatory utterances were made within the
hearing distance of third parties. The investigating prosecutor found that no sufficient evidence
existed.TheSecretaryofJusticeinhisResolutionaffirmedthedecisionoftheCityProsecutor.
As to the charge of attempted homicide against the herein petitioners other than Rosalinda
Punzalan,theSecretaryofJusticeresolvedtodismissthecomplaintbecauseitwasinthenatureofa
countercharge.TheDepartmentofJusticeinaResolutiondatedJune18,1998hadalreadydirected
thatDencioDelaPeabelikewiseinvestigatedforthechargeofattemptedhomicideinconnectionwith
theshootingincidentthatoccurredonAugust13,1997makinghimapartytothecasefiledbyRainier
Punzalan. This resulted in the resolution of the Secretary of Justice that the complaint of herein
respondent Dencio Dela Pea should be threshed out in the proceedings relevant to the shooting
incidentthatresultedintheseriousinjuryofhereinpetitionerRainierPunzalan.
In the case at bar, therefore, the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion
contrarytothefindingoftheCourtofAppeals.ItiswellsettledintherecentcaseofSamson,etal.v.
[27]
Guingona that the Court will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or
reinvestigationsandleavetotheinvestigatingprosecutorsufficientlatitudeofdiscretionintheexercise
ofdeterminationofwhatconstitutessufficientevidenceaswillestablishprobablecauseforthefilingof
informationagainstanoffender.Moreover,hisfindingsarenotsubjecttoreviewunlessshowntohave
[28]
beenmadewithgraveabuse.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 6,
2002 and the Resolution dated May 23, 2003 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration are
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheResolutionoftheSecretaryofJustice,directingthewithdrawalof
the informations for slight oral defamation and attempted homicide against the petitioners, is
REINSTATED.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Quisumbing,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

[1]
Rollo, p. 44. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A.
BarriosandEdgardoF.Sundiam.
[2]
SumbongSalaysay,Rollo,p.202.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id.,p.203.
[6]
Punzalanv.Plata,A.M.No.MTJ001310,18December2001,372SCRA534,535536.
[7]
JointResolution,Rollo,p.99.
[8]
Rollo,pp.251&222.
[9]
SinumpaangSalaysay,Rollo,p.249.
[10]
Rollo,p.95.
[11]
Id.,p.99.
[12]
Id.,p.100101.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 5/6
6/14/2017 Punzalan vs Pea : 158543 : July 21, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision
[13]
Resolution,Rollo,pp.145146.
[14]
Id.,p.169.
[15]
Rollo,p.197.
[16]
Id.,pp.9192.
[17]
Id.,p.60.
[18]
Id.,p.62.
[19]
Id.,p.18.
[20]
Peoplev.Chavez,411Phil.482,491(2001).
[21]
Regalado,FlorenzB.,RemedialLawCompendium,Vol.1,1997Ed.,p.705.
[22]
G.R.No.103068,22June2001,359SCRA409,421citingAkbayanYouth,etal.v.Comelec,G.R.Nos.147066&
147179,26March2001,355SCRA318,341.
[23]
Benitov.Comelec,G.R.No.134913,19January2001,349SCRA705,714.
[24]
Aurillo,Jr.v.Rabi,G.R.No.120014,26November2002,392SCRA595,603.
[25]
Peoplev.Peralta,G.R.No.121234,8August2002,387SCRA45,64citingWebbv.DeLeon,317Phil.758(1995).
[26]
G.R.No.154920,15April2003.
[27]
G.R.No.123504,14December2000,348SCRA32,37citingCamanagv.Guerrero,335Phil.945,969(1997).
[28]
Joaquin,Jr.andBJProductionsv.Drilon,etal.,361Phil.900,908(1999).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/158543.htm 6/6