Case Digest: Punzalan vs. Plata, G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013

      Rule 112, Preliminary Investigation, Discretion | Criminal Procedure

Facts:

The Punzalan and the Plata families were neighbors in Hulo Bliss, Mandaluyong City. 

At around 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 and 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 Plata and one for Illegal Possession of Firearms against Robert Cagara. On the other hand, Michael, Ruben Plata and several others filed several complaints against petitioners Rosalinda, Randall, Rainier, and several individuals before the Office of the City Prosecutor.

On July 28, 1998, the Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaints for lack of sufficient basis both in fact and in law. On March 23, 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) modified the July 28, 1998 Joint Resolution and ordered the filing of separate informations against Rosalinda, Rainier, Randall, and the other respondents in the above cases for Slight Oral Defamation, Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious Mischief, and Theft.

On,June 6, 2000, the DOJ reconsidered its findings upon review and ruled that there was no probable cause, which set aside its March 23, 2000 Resolution and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to withdraw the informations.

The complainants moved for a reconsideration but the DOJ denied the motion in its Resolution dated October 11, 2000.

On January 11, 2001, the complainants elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) by way of certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary in ordering the withdrawal of the separate informations.

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, finding that probable cause exists in the subject complaints and that the complaints had sufficient basis.

Issue:

I. WoN the CA erred in setting aside the resolutions of the DOJ dated June 6, 2000 and October 11, 2000.

II. WoN the CA erred in holding that, at the very least, the remarks made by petitioner Rosalinda Punzalan constitute slight oral defamation.

III. WoN the CA 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.

Contention:

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.

Held: Reversed.

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.

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. 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. 

I. 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 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. 

II. 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.

III. 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.

Principle:

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.

——

Recit Version

Facts: 

The Punzalan and Plata families were neighbors in Mandaluyong City. In 1997, a confrontation occurred between Dencio dela Peña, a house boarder of the Platas, and a group that included Rainier Punzalan, Randall Punzalan, Ricky Eugenio, Jose Gregorio, and Alex Ofrin. 

The altercation resulted in a gun being fired and Rainier being injured in his thigh. Complaints were filed, but the Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed them for lack of sufficient basis. The DOJ later modified the resolution and ordered the filing of separate charges. However, the DOJ reconsidered and ruled that there was no probable cause, leading to a court case. 

The Court of Appeals ultimately found that probable cause exists in the complaints and reinstated the DOJ's March 23, 2000 resolution.

Issue:

WoN the CA erred in setting aside the resolutions of the DOJ. 

Contention:

The petitioners argue that the prosecutor has full discretion in determining the existence of probable cause and that the DOJ did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of the informations. Absent grave abuse of discretion, CA should not interfere with the prosecutor's discretion.

Held:  

The conduct of preliminary investigation to determine the existence of probable cause is a function of the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor is given broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those believed to have committed the crime. The reason for this is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private individuals, and the complainant cannot control the prosecution.

I. No clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion committed by the DOJ when it set aside its the resolution of the public prosecutor. Thus, the CA erred in supplanting the prosecutor’s discretion by its own. It also appears that the complaints are in the nature of countercharges against respondents. 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.