Cited Laws
Accordingly, the continuation of the preliminary investigation until completed is ordered and if probable cause exists, let the corresponding information against the respondents be filed. [4] The Court of Appeals drew a distinction between the civil case which is an action for specific performance and damages involving petitioners joint savings account, and the criminal case which is an action for estafa/violation of Batas Pambansa Blg . 22 involving Argovans current account. The Court of Appeals belied the claim of petitioners about an automatic fund transfer arrangement from petitioners joint savings account to Argovans current account. By petition for review, petitioners assail the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the following grounds: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE RESOLUTIONS DATED JUNE 3, 2004 AND DECEMBER 15, 2004 OF THE DOJ, THERE BEING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION BELOW BECAUSE TWO DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING PETITIONERS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PREJUDICIAL QUESTION DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. [5] The issues raised by petitioners are divided into the procedural issue of whether certiorari is the correct mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals and the substantive issue of whether a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings. On the procedural issue, petitioners contend that SMCs resort to certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy because the DOJs act of sustaining the investigating prosecutors resolution to suspend the criminal proceedings due to a valid prejudicial question was an error in judgment and not of jurisdiction. Petitioners further assert that nevertheless, an error of judgment is not correctible by certiorari when SMC had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, which was to file an appeal to the Office of the President. The procedure taken up by petitioner was correct. The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the Secretary of the DOJ through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. [6] In Alcaraz v. Gonzalez , [7] we stressed that the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Justice Secretary who exercises the power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor; and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such prosecutor. Thus, while the Court of Appeals may review the resolution of the Justice Secretary, it may do so only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the R