Odchigue-Bondoc vs Tan Tiong Bio
prosecutor does not determine the guilt of innocence of the
Facts:
Respondent filed a complaint for estafa against Fil-Estate
officials including its Corporate Secretary, herein respondent.
Petitioner denies the allegations.
The DOJ, by resolution signed by the Chief State Prosecutor
for the Secretary of Justice, motu proprio dismissed the
petition on finding that there was no showing of any
reversible error.
The CA set aside the DOJ Secretarys resolution holding that
it committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its
Resolution dismissing respondents petition for review
without therein expressing clearly and distinctly the facts on
which the dismissal was based, in violation of Sec. 14, Art.
VIII of the Constitution (No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based).
Petitioner asserts in this present petition for review on
certiorari that the requirement in Sec. 14, Art. VIII of the
Constitution applies only to decisions of courts of justice,
and it does not extend to decisions or rulings of executive
departments such as the DOJ.
Respondent counters that the constitutional requirement is
not limited to courts as it extends to quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies, as well as to preliminary investigations
conducted by these tribunals.
Issue:
1. Whether or not a prosecutor exercises quasi-judicial
power? NO
2. Whether or not the DOJ Secretary exercises quasi-judicial
power? NO
Held:
1. No. A prosecutor does not exercise adjudication or rule-
making powers. A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-
judicial proceeding, but is merely inquisitorial since the
accused. While the prosecutor makes the determination
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-
court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on
the accused.
2. No. The Secretary of Justice in reviewing a prosecutors
order or resolution via appeal or petition for review cannot be
considered a quasi-judicial proceeding since the DOJ is not a
quasi-judicial body. Sec 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution does
not thus extend to resolutions issued by the DOJ Secretary.
A preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding
since "the prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused."
x x x [A prosecutor] does not exercise adjudication nor rule-
making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the
persons who may be reasonably charged [of] a crime and to
enable the [prosecutor] to prepare his complaint or
information. 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 the
[prosecutor] makes that determination, he cannot be said to
be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that
pass judgment on the accused, not the [prosecutor].
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A preliminary investigation thus partakes of an investigative
or inquisitorial power for the sole purpose of obtaining
information on what future action of a judicial nature may be
taken.
When the Secretary of Justice is convinced that a petition for
review does not suffer any of the infirmities laid down in
Section 7, it can decide what action to take (i.e., reverse,
modify, affirm or dismiss the appeal altogether), conformably
with Section 12. In other words, Sections 7 and 12 are part of
a two-step approach in the DOJ Secretarys review power.
As for respondents reliance on Adasa, it too fails for, unlike
in the case of Adasa, herein petitioner has not been
arraigned as in fact no Information has been filed against her.
In the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of a
public prosecutor who alone determines the sufficiency of
evidence that will establish probable cause in filing a criminal
information, courts will not interfere with his findings;
otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review
the exercise of discretion on his part each time a criminal
complaint is dismissed or given due course.