BUAN vs.

MATUGAS
G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007, Garcia, J. kam

Topic: Purposes of preliminary investigation (see first two doctrines)

SUMMARY: Buan’s complaint for attempted rape against Matugas was dismissed by the City Prosecutor (CP) for lack of
probable cause. The Secretary of Justice (SOJ) thereafter reversed the CP’s findings and held that there is reasonable
ground to believe that a crime has been committed. When Matugas filed a petition for certiorari with CA, CA dismissed
the Attempted Rape information against Matugas and reversed the SOJ’s resolutions.
SC held that in a petition for certiorari, the CA cannot reverse and set aside a decision of the SOJ and substitute
its own judgment. It is exclusively within the ambit of the prosecutor’s (SOJ in this case) power to determine whether
probable cause exists and which crime to prosecute for. The SOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it
reversed the CP’s findings and filed the criminal information against Matugas.

DOCTRINES:
 The purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent’s probable guilt thereof—it
is exclusively within the ambit of the prosecutor’s power to determine whether probable cause exists and
which crime to prosecute for.
 A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspect. While probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it
requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the
suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
 [NOT CONNECTED TO TOPIC] There is grave abuse of discretion only when there is a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Not every error in the proceedings, or
every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, is grave abuse of discretion.

FACTS: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA
Petitioner (P) Nace Sue P. Buan
Respondent (R) Francisco T. Matugas
 In 1995, Francisco Matugas (R) was the governor of Surigao del Norte wherein Nace Buan (P) worked as a
regular, provincial government employee. R asked P to accompany him to a work-related trip (allegedly only a
pretense) to Manila from July 22-28, 1995.
The incident:
 R invited P to lunch at Heritage Hotel on one of those days, but was first asked to accompany him to his room
to get some important papers before the lunch. P used the room’s CR first then R used it after she came out of
the CR. R allegedly had no shirt after he came out of the comfort room, claiming that he has to dress properly
for their lunch guests. Then, without any warning, he suddenly grabbed P by her shoulder as he passed by the
chair she was seated on, embraced and kissed her, prompting her to resist by pushing and elbowing him,
causing him to lose his balance and immediately desisted.
After the incident:
 P’s mother advised her not to file any complaint yet as R was still the powerful provincial governor of Surigao
del Norte at that time. P immediately resigned from her work at the Provincial Government.
 6 years later, May 9, 2001, P finally gathered enough courage to file an affidavit-complaint against R before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. P’s mother executed a corroborating affidavit on the same day.
 In his counter-affidavit, R averred that his tight schedule would not have allowed him to be at the scene of the
alleged crime. P filed her reply-affidavit and the case was thereafter submitted for resolution
Procedural:
 Prosecutor’s resolution: Dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause prompting P to file an appeal with
the DOJ.
 Secretary of Justice (SOJ): Reversed City Prosecutor’s findings and held that there is reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. R’s MR was
subsequently denied.
 CA: R filed a petition for certiorari w/ CA claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOJ. CA reversed
and set aside the questioned resolutions of the SOJ, and dismissed the criminal information for Attempted
Rape against R. (There was a dissent by then CA Associate Justice Romeo Browner [he’s now Comelec
Commissioner], who voted to uphold the ruling of the SOJ and to dismiss R’s petition.) P’s MR was dismissed.
ISSUE [HELD]: WON CA erred in holding that the SOJ committed grave abuse of discretion when he overturned the
findings of the City Prosecutor? [YES]

RATIO: [MORE IMPORTANT - #2 RELATED TO TOPIC]

1. CA’s powers – CA is empowered under its certiorari jurisdiction to annul and declare void the questioned
resolutions of the SOJ only on two grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction, and (2) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. The question is, can the CA reverse and set aside a decision of the SOJ and substitute
its own judgment, as it did in this case? Definitely not. The power to reverse and set aside partakes of an appellate
jurisdiction which the CA does not have over judgments of the SOJ exercising quasi-judicial functions.

There is a whale of a difference between the CA’s power of review in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and
its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari like the one filed in this case. Certiorari power is limited to
questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion only. Wisdom or error of judgment on the part of the
SOJ in arriving at his conclusions of fact and law which is proper in an appeal cannot legitimately be the subject of
review in a petition for certiorari before the CA because the decision of the SOJ is not appealable to the CA.

The SC agrees with the observation of Justice Brawner that the only issue rightfully presented before the CA
was WON the SOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Prosecutor’s findings and directing the
filing of information for attempted rape against R.

The determination of probable cause is a function that, by law, pertains to the public prosecutor (DOJ).
Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the appellate court is
precluded, under the principle of separation of powers, from usurping the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the executive branch, the DOJ. There is grave abuse of discretion only
when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Not every
error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, is grave abuse of discretion.

The CA missed the crucial step of the trial proper when it became a trier of facts which is definitely uncalled
for in this situation.

2. [IMPORTANT – Preliminary Investigation] The purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether

there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
respondent’s probable guilt thereof. A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more
likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. While probable cause demands
more than bare suspicion, it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.

It is exclusively within the ambit of the prosecutor’s powers to determine whether probable cause exists and
which crime to prosecute for. Should it be determined later on after a full-blown trial where a full account
can be made of the incident, that not all the elements of attempted rape exist, it is then for the trial court to
acquit respondent or convict him for a lesser crime necessarily included therein such as acts of lasciviousness
or unjust vexation. But the SOJ has the discretion to determine for which crime he should prosecute for.

It is understandable for the prosecutor to ordinarily aim high. It has a valid reason. For when a lesser crime is
filed by the prosecutor (e.g. homicide) and during trial it is found that the crime is actually graver (e.g. murder),
there would be nothing that can be done to change the crime charged, lest a violation of due process or double
jeopardy results.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.