Facts: The Punzalan and Plata families were neighbors in Mandaluyong City.

Respondent Dencio Dela Pena was a house boarder of the Plata family. He was standing near the Plata home on the night of 13 August 1997, when the group of Petitioner Rainier Punzalan (referred to as Punzalan & co.) approached him and shouted Hoy, kalbo, saan mo binili ang sombrero mo? Dela Pena replied, Kalbo nga ako, ay pinagtatawan pa ninyo ako. Irked by Dela Penas response, Punzalan & co. assaulted him by slapping his face, punching and kicking him. Dela Pena escaped just as Toto Ofrin of Punzalan & co. tried to stab Dela Pena with a balisong. Punzalan & co. then chased after Dela Pena. As Dela Pena was fleeing, he encountered Cagara, the Platas family driver. Cagara w as carrying a gun, which Dela Pena grabbed and pointed to Punzalan & co. to scare them off. Michael Plata who was nearby, intervened by wrestling the gun away from Dela Pena, which caused it to accidentally fire, hitting Rainier Punzalan on the thigh. Dela Pena, Plata and Cagara (referred to as Dela Pena & co.) ran to the Platas house and locked themselves in. From the outside of the house, Punzalan & co. shouted Lumabas kayo dyan, putang ina ninyo! Papatayin naming kayo! Rainier Punzalan filed a criminal complaint against Michael Plata for Attempted Homicide and Robert Cagara for Illegal Possession of Firearm. The Department of Justice (DOJ) directed that Dela Pena be likewise investigated for the charge of Attempted Homicide. Dela Pena & co. then filed countercharges, including Attempted Murder against Punzalan & co., and one for Grave Threats against Toto Ofrin. Subsequently, Cagara filed a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan, mother of Rainier Punzalan. Cagara alleged that during a meeting at the Office of the Prosecutor of Mandaluyong, Rosalinda told him, Hoy Robert, magkanong ibinigay ng mga Plata sa iyo sa pagtestigo? Dodoblehin ko at ipapasok pa kita ng trabaho. Rulings of the Prosecutor and Justice Secretary: On 28 July 1998, the Assistant City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong issued a Joint Resolution dismissing the complaint against Rosalinda Punzalan and the charge of Attempted Murder filed by Dela Pena against Punzalan & co. On appeal by Dela Pena and Cagara, the Justice Secretary on 23 March 2000 issued a Resolution reversing the Joint Resolution dated 28 July 1998 and modifying the following charges: reduced to Slight Oral Defamation Punzalan & co. Toto Ofrin reduced to Other Light Threats On reconsideration, the Justice Secretary on 6 June 2000 set aside the Resolution dated 23 March 2000 and directed the withdrawal of the Informations against Punzalan & co. and Rosalinda Punzalan (i.e. all charges against Petitioners are dropped) Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA): The Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari at the CA seeking to reinstate the modified criminal charges as indicated in the ruling of the Justice Secretary dated 23 March 2000. The CA granted their petition, but denied reinstatement of the charge of Other Light Threats against Toto Ofrin. Hence this appeal. Issues: W/N petition for certiorari was the proper remedy. YES. W/N there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of probable cause. NO. Petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial 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. Lack of jurisdiction defined when respondent does not have the legal power to determine the case. Grave abuse defined when the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law. It must amount to: despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; AND law. It is not enough that there is abuse of discretion, such abuse must be grave. Following the definitions above, the Court finds that there was no abuse of discretion committed by the City Prosecutor: In dismissing the charge of Slight Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan the alleged defamatory statement was uttered within the Office of the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor, being the proper officer at the time of the incident, is the best person to observe the demeanor and conduct of the parties and witnesses and determine probable cause. The City Prosecutor, after observing the conduct of the parties, deemed that there was no probable cause. This was also upheld by the Justice Secretary in his Resolution. Jurisprudence provides that the question of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is within the purview of the functions of the prosecutor, and ultimately, that of the Justice Secretary. In dismissing the charge of Attempted Homicide against Punzalan & co. this was in the nature of a countercharge, which the DOJ did not deem necessary to pursue. After Rainier Punzalan had filed his complaint, the DOJ directed that Dela Pena also be investigated for the charge of Attempted Homicide filed by Rainier. Therefore the complaint of Dela Pena of Attempted Homicide against Punzalan & co. was no longer necessary since the same could be threshed out in proceedings relating to the Attempted Homicide charge filed by Rainier. The Court also finds that the Justice Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Absent any finding of grave abuse, jurisprudence in Samson, et. al. v. Guingona dictates that the Court should not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations. The determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the filing of an information against an offender must be left with the investigating prosecutor. n arbitrary or