Facts:

The case, G.R. No. 131144, revolves around the petition of Noel Advincula against the Court of Appeals and several respondents including Amando Ocampo and Isagani Ocampo. On October 1, 1993, at around three in the afternoon, an altercation occurred when Isagani Ocampo was pursued by Advincula, who was armed with a bolo. Advincula and his friends were drinking when they confronted Isagani, which escalated into a threatening chase. After Isagani reached his home, Amando Ocampo, armed with a licensed .22 caliber gun, confronted Advincula but ended up firing a warning shot to avoid further conflict. Following these events, both Advincula and the Ocampos filed several criminal complaints against each other.

Advincula ultimately filed a complaint on April 5, 1994, for Illegal Possession of Firearms against the Ocampos. However, the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite dismissed the complaint on May 26, 1994, citing insufficient evidence. This dismissal was later appealed to the Secretary o

...

Facts:

Incident and Immediate Events

• On 1 October 1993, during the mid-afternoon, petitioner Noel Advincula and two drinking companions were involved in an altercation with private respondent Isagani Ocampo.
• According to the Court of Appeals’ findings, Advincula shouted invectives at Isagani and challenged him to a fight; during the confrontation, Advincula, armed with a bolo, pursued Isagani.
• Isagani managed to reach his residence and evade his pursuers, while Advincula continued his verbal abuse even after Isagani had left.

Involvement of Other Respondents and Escalation

• Subsequent to the incident, Enrique Rosas informed Amando Ocampo (Isagani’s father) that Advincula had chased his son with a bolo.
• Amando Ocampo, armed with a .22 caliber gun he claimed was licensed, confronted Advincula; during this encounter, Advincula threatened to attack Amando with his bolo, prompting Amando to discharge a warning shot aimed upward.
• Shortly after, Advincula’s drinking companions were observed firing at his own residence, compounding the chaotic nature of the evening’s events.

Conflicting Versions of Events

• Private respondents’ version (as discovered by the Court of Appeals):
• Isagani was simply on his way home when confronted and provoked by Advincula and his companions.
• After Isagani initially fled, Amando, responding to a report from an informant, armed himself and engaged Advincula and his companions.
• The incident escalated with gunfire, and evidence such as bullet holes in Advincula’s residence supported this narrative.
• Advincula’s version:
• The confrontation began when Isagani passed by and shouted at Advincula and his friends, triggering a heated verbal dispute.
• Isagani then returned accompanied by his father Amando and brother Jerry, both armed with firearms, leading to a shooting incident specifically targeting Advincula, who then retreated to his home.

Criminal Complaints and Initial Investigations

• Multiple criminal complaints were filed stemming from the altercation—one by Advincula against private respondents and counter-complaints by the Ocampo family.
• Advincula filed a criminal complaint on 5 April 1994 for Illegal Possession of Firearms against Amando and Isagani Ocampo before the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.
• The complaint was supported by various pieces of evidence including affidavits, photographs showing bullet holes in Advincula’s residence, and a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit stating that private respondents had no records in that office.

Dismissal, Appeal, and Subsequent Actions

• The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, with the Provincial Prosecutor’s approval, dismissed Advincula’s complaint on 26 May 1994 for lack of evidence.
• Notwithstanding the dismissal, Advincula filed an appeal for review with the Secretary of Justice on 21 October 1994, insisting that the evidence on record established a prima facie case against the private respondents.
• In its Resolution dated 6 June 1996, the Secretary of Justice ordered the filing of criminal Informations against Amando and Isagani Ocampo, asserting that:
• Even though Amando possessed a licensed firearm, he had no permit for carrying it outside his residence, rendering his possession illegal in that context.
• Isagani’s denial, when juxtaposed with witness identifications and physical evidence (i.e., bullet marks), confirmed his active involvement in the shooting incident.

Intervention of the Court of Appeals and Contested Issues

• Private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
• The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents by setting aside the Secretary of Justice’s Resolution, emphasizing:
• The insufficiency of evidence against Isagani Ocampo, who failed to present convincing proof of possessing a firearm during the incident.
• That no probable cause existed because the Information did not specifically identify the firearms allegedly possessed, thereby lacking corpus delicti.
• The controversy eventually reached the Supreme Court through Advincula’s petition for review.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Evidence

• Was there sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for filing charges of Illegal Possession of Firearms against the private respondents?
• Did the testimonies, physical evidence, and affidavits collectively support a prima facie case under PD 1866?

Timeliness and Legal Remedies

• Whether the filing of Advincula’s appeal with the Secretary of Justice, albeit delayed beyond the prescribed 15-day period (DOJ Circular No. 7), could be justified on grounds of preventing injustice.
• Whether the filing of the Petition for Certiorari by private respondents was an appropriate remedy once the Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms had already been filed with the trial court.

Jurisdiction and the Role of Appropriate Forums

• May the Court of Appeals set aside the Secretary of Justice’s Resolution even though the corresponding Information had been filed in the Regional Trial Court?
• What is the proper remedy available to private respondents given that the criminal case had already been initiated in the trial court?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)