Tan vs Matsuura and Tanjutco G.R. No. 1799003 Tan vs Cua G.R. No. 195816 February 18, 2013 Facts: Petitioner Tan filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor for the crime of falsification against Petitioners Matsuura, Tanjutco and Cua which was dismissed by the said office for lack of probable cause. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was as well denied by the same office. Petitioner then filed a Petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). In April 2003, then Secretary of Justice Datumanong denied the petition for lack of evidence. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was granted by then DOJ Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez in a Resolution dated July 1, 2004. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said resolution which was denied by DOJ Undersecretary Pineda on behalf of the Secretary but with modification. The latter resolution excluded Respondent Cua from the filing of an information. Petitioner filed for a Partial Motion for Reconsideration which was later granted by the DOJ. Respondents filed their Petitions for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals which were granted by the appellate court. Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals granting Respondents’ petitions.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals can take cognizance of petitions filed before it where the Department of Justice, through the Secretary of Justice, has already rendered a resolution where cause has already been determined and information for such has already been instituted in court?
Ruling:
Despite the established principle that the determination of probable cause is vested in the public prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice, it is also a well-settled rule that the courts are vested with the power to review findings of prosecutors during preliminary investigations in exceptional cases. While the findings of the prosecutors are reviewable by the DOJ, this does not mean that the courts cannot intervene and review the findings of the prosecutors or the DOJ. In this case, the appellate court can take cognizance of the petitions considering that several varying resolutions were issued by the DOJ. The appellate court is merely exercising its power of review to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion.
