G.R. No. 164715 - Alcaraz vs. Gonzalez

On August 11, 2000, Ramon C. Gonzalez, aged 61, was driving his Nissan Cefiro along the right outermost lane of the South-Luzon Expressway, heading to Makati City just past the Sucat toll gate.
Arnel C. Alcaraz, a Customs Collector, was driving a Nissan Infiniti in the middle lane between Sucat and Bicutan Interchange, heading to Manila from Batangas City, armed with a .38 caliber pistol and carrying a valid Mission Order.
Alcaraz intended to use the Skyway, signaled, and proceeded to the right-most lane reserved for vehicles entering the Skyway. Gonzalez had to swerve right to avoid collision, nearly hitting a concrete island.

Gonzalez chased after Alcaraz, opened his window, shouted and demanded an explanation for his sudden lane change. Alcaraz replied he had signaled. Gonzalez reproved and drove off.
Alcaraz then moved alongside Gonzalez, raised his pistol, and fired two shots at Gonzalez’s car. One bullet passed through the right front window and exited at the left rear door; the second hit the left rear window.
Alcaraz fled but was intercepted at the Skyway toll gate; the police confiscated his .38 pistol with live and spent bullets.

Gonzalez reported to the Parañaque Police, filed a complaint for attempted homicide, and gave a statement.
The PNP Crime Laboratory examined the car, confirmed the bullet trajectory consistent with shots fired from the right front side.
On the same date, the police filed a criminal complaint for attempted homicide against Alcaraz.

After inquest, the City Prosecutor filed an Information for attempted homicide with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
Alcaraz admitted firing his gun but claimed he fired downward at the door to scare Gonzalez who allegedly had a firearm and assaulted him by throwing coins and screaming invectives.
Gonzalez denied Alcaraz’s claims and insisted that Alcaraz intended to kill him.
The Investigating Prosecutor found probable cause and retained the Information. Alcaraz’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Alcaraz petitioned the DOJ who reversed the finding of probable cause, directing the withdrawal of the Information.
The DOJ emphasized lack of clear proof of intent to kill, noting Gonzalez was unscathed and that Alcaraz fired only twice, aimed to scare.
Gonzalez’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Undersecretary of Justice.

Gonzalez filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court challenging the DOJ resolution.
CA reversed the DOJ, holding there was probable cause to charge Alcaraz with attempted homicide.
Alcaraz filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied.

The CA had no jurisdiction to review DOJ resolutions under Rule 43.
The CA erred in substituting its finding of probable cause over that of the DOJ.
Gonzalez had no legal standing to appeal under Rule 43.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported petitioner, arguing the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not Rule 43.
Gonzalez maintained he had standing and that the DOJ acted as quasi-judicial officer, making the case reviewable under Rule 43.

Whether the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy to assail the DOJ’s resolution finding no probable cause against Alcaraz.
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Justice’s resolution on probable cause and to substitute its own findings.
Whether Ramon Gonzalez had legal standing to file a petition for review under Rule 43 challenging the DOJ’s resolution.