ODCHIGUE v.

TAN
1. Tan fully paid the installment payments of a lot in
Manila, a project of Fil-Estate Golf and Development
Inc. [Fil Estate], but Fil Estate failed to deliver him
the title covering the lot, despite repeated
demands.
2. Respondent learned that the lost sold to him was
inexistent. Hence, he filed a complaint for Estafa
against Fil Estate officials including its Corporate
Secretary Atty. Odchigue [petitioner] and other
employees.
3. Petitioner, in her counter affidavit, allege that she
had no participation at all in the acts or
transactions alleged by the respondent. Petitioner
denied the alleged handwritten approval of the
request of the respondent. She allege that she
never transacted, either directly or indirectly, with
Mrs. Ona or the respondent.
4. Respondent filed a complaint for Perjury against
petitioner. Denied by the Prosecutors office.
5. DOJ, on petition for review, motu proprio dismissed
the petition.
6. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA set aside the decision of the DOJ Secretary.
a. Committed GADLEJ in dismissing pet rev
without expressing clearly and distinctly the
facts on which dismissal was based, violating
sec. 14 art. VIII of the Constitution.
b. The matter of disposing the petition outright
is delineated under Sec. 7 of NPS Rule on
Appeal.
ISSUE: WON DOJ Secretary committed GADLEJ in
dismissing motu proprio the complaint of the respondent.
NO.

HELD:
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."
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.
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.
Balangauan v. CA the action of 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." Section 14, Article
VIII of the Constitution does not thus extend to
resolutions issued by the DOJ Secretary.
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.