The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the Secretary of Justice, directing a prosecutor to file an information in a criminal case, cannot be appealed via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This means that those seeking to challenge the Justice Secretary’s findings must pursue other legal avenues, as the determination of probable cause is an executive function, not a quasi-judicial one. Practically, this limits the ability to immediately appeal such decisions, potentially expediting criminal proceedings.

Challenging Justice: When Can Preliminary Findings Be Appealed?

In this case, Ferdinand T. Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, and Rafael Perez de Tagle, Jr., corporate directors and officers of Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI), faced estafa charges. The dispute arose from a Project Agreement between FEPI and Manila Southcoast Development Corporation (MSDC) concerning land development in Nasugbu, Batangas. Wilson Go, the respondent, purchased a lot from FEPI but alleged that the company failed to develop the property or deliver the title despite full payment. This led Go to file estafa charges against the petitioners, claiming they misrepresented FEPI as the owner of the property.

The City Prosecutor initially dismissed Go’s complaint, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this decision, directing the filing of an information for estafa. Petitioners then sought to appeal the DOJ’s resolution to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 43 does not apply to decisions of the Secretary of Justice. Hence, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether Rule 43 is a proper mode of appeal from a resolution of the Secretary of Justice directing the prosecutor to file an information in a criminal case, and whether the conduct of preliminary investigation is a quasi-judicial function.

Petitioners argued that decisions during preliminary investigations should be considered quasi-judicial, making them appealable under Rule 43. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the DOJ is not among the agencies enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 43. The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one thing excludes another) applies here, limiting Rule 43’s scope to specifically named agencies.

The Court further clarified that a preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. In Bautista v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated:

“[T]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial… It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.”

While prosecutors exercise powers akin to those of a court during preliminary investigations, this similarity does not transform the process into a quasi-judicial function. A quasi-judicial body affects the rights of private parties through adjudication or rule-making, with decisions having the same effect as judgments of a court. This is not the case when a prosecutor determines probable cause, or when the Secretary of Justice reviews such determinations.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding probable cause to indict petitioners for estafa is not appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43. The Court emphasized that it cannot interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged unless there is a grave abuse of discretion.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the petition raised factual matters, such as the ownership of the property and the existence of deceit. These are outside the scope of a petition for review on certiorari, which should raise only pure questions of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a decision by the Secretary of Justice to file an information for estafa can be appealed via a petition for review under Rule 43.
What is Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure?	Rule 43 governs appeals to the Court of Appeals from decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions.
Is the Department of Justice considered a quasi-judicial agency?	No, the Supreme Court held that the Department of Justice is not a quasi-judicial body when it reviews findings of probable cause.
What is a preliminary investigation?	A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, warranting the filing of a criminal information.
What is the significance of the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius?	This principle means that the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of another. In this context, since the DOJ was not explicitly listed in Rule 43, it is excluded from its coverage.
What happens after the Secretary of Justice directs the filing of an information?	After the Secretary of Justice directs the filing of an information, the case proceeds to the appropriate trial court for arraignment and trial on the merits.
Can courts interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor?	Courts generally cannot interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor unless there is a grave abuse of discretion.
What type of questions can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari?	A petition for review on certiorari should raise only pure questions of law, not factual matters requiring the evaluation of evidence.

This case clarifies the limits of appealing decisions made by the Secretary of Justice during preliminary investigations, emphasizing that such decisions are executive in nature and not subject to review under Rule 43. Litigants must, therefore, explore alternative legal remedies to challenge these decisions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ferdinand T. Santos, et al. v. Wilson Go, G.R. No. 156081, October 19, 2005