Facts:

This case, G.R. No. 164715, involves a petition for review filed by Arnel C. Alcaraz (petitioner) against Ramon C. Gonzalez (respondent), with the Supreme Court issuing its decision on September 20, 2006. The events leading to this legal dispute occurred on August 11, 2000, when Gonzalez was driving his Nissan Cefiro along the rightmost lane of the South-Luzon Expressway, shortly after the Sucat toll gate, heading to Makati City. Alcaraz, a Customs Collector from the Bureau of Customs in Batangas Port, was in a Nissan Infiniti, traveling in the middle lane towards Manila from Batangas City. Armed with a .38 caliber pistol and carrying a Mission Order that was valid until August 21, Alcaraz signaled his intention to move to the rightmost lane reserved for vehicles accessing the Skyway. This abrupt move forced Gonzalez, who was already in the rightmost lane, to veer away to avoid a collision. Enraged, Gonzalez chased Alcaraz, shouting at him for cutting in. Alcaraz replied that he

...

Facts:

Incident and Vehicular Details

• On August 11, 2000, at approximately 10:05 a.m., 61-year-old Ramon C. Gonzalez was driving his Nissan Cefiro (plate no. UPW-298) along the right-most lane of the South-Luzon Expressway, having just passed the Sucat toll gate on his way to Makati City.
• Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz, serving as a Customs Collector at the Bureau of Customs, Batangas Port, was driving his Nissan Infiniti (plate no. CNH-338) in the middle lane between the Sucat and Bicutan Interchange en route to Manila from Batangas City.
• Alcaraz, armed with a .38 caliber pistol and carrying Mission Order No. 699-2000 (valid until August 21, 2000), signaled and moved into the right-most lane—which was reserved for vehicles entering the Skyway—forcing Gonzalez to swerve to avoid a collision.

Confrontation and Shooting Incident

• After being forced to swerve, Gonzalez chased after Alcaraz, opened his windows, and shouted inquiries regarding the sudden lane change.
• Alcaraz responded that he had signaled his intention to shift lanes.
• While driving parallel to Gonzalez’s vehicle, Alcaraz, nearing an island on the expressway, raised his pistol and fired two shots:
• The first bullet hit the right front window and exited through the left rear door of Gonzalez’s car.
• The second bullet struck the left rear window.
• Shortly thereafter, Alcaraz fled the scene but was intercepted by Skyway toll gate guards, who confiscated his .38 pistol along with ammunition (7 live bullets and 3 empty shells).

Investigation and Initial Criminal Proceedings

• Gonzalez reported the incident at the ParaAaque City Police Station, gave his statement, and filed a criminal complaint for attempted homicide against Alcaraz.
• The PNP Crime Laboratory conducted an examination of Gonzalez’s vehicle. Their report detailed:
• Entrance and exit bullet holes consistent with rounds fired from the right front of the vehicle.
• Specific measurements of the bullet holes were recorded to ascertain the bullet’s trajectory.
• Subsequent to the investigation, a criminal complaint was formally filed by Alfredo Tan Buraga, Officer-in-Charge of the ParaAaque Police Station, and an Information for attempted homicide was lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of ParaAaque City.
• Alcaraz, through his counter-affidavit, admitted to firing his gun but claimed he acted in self-defense after Gonzales allegedly provoked him by:
• Opening his car window, uttering invectives, and signaling inappropriately (e.g., showing a dirty finger).
• Allegedly being pelted with coins by Gonzalez, which hit his body and his lady passenger, and viewing Gonzalez reaching for a short firearm.
• Insisting that his shots were intended only to scare and not to kill.

Developments on the Determination of Probable Cause

• The investigating prosecutor maintained probable cause against Alcaraz for attempted homicide, basing the finding on both the physical evidence (bullet trajectory) and testimonies.
• In response to Alcaraz’s motion for reconsideration, the Secretary of Justice, Hernando Perez, issued a Resolution ordering the withdrawal of the Information due to a failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Alcaraz had the intent to kill.
• The Resolution highlighted that although Alcaraz fired his gun, evidence indicated that his aim was directed at the passenger side of Gonzalez’s car, and that Gonzalez was unscathed.
• The ruling underscored that intent to kill—a necessary element for attempted homicide—must be established with clear and convincing evidence.
• Gonzalez then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that:
• The reversal of the resolution by the Secretary of Justice was improper.
• The resolution should have been contested during trial to fully contest the self-defense claim adduced by Alcaraz.
• In its processing of the case, the CA granted the petition for review, holding that there was probable cause to file an Information for attempted homicide against Alcaraz, even though jurisdictional issues regarding the proper remedy were raised by both parties.

Procedural Posturing and Controversies

• Alcaraz contended that:
• He lacked the legal standing to file the petition for review.
• The proper remedy was petition for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than a petition under Rule 43.
• The Metropolitan Trial Court had exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter.
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through its Comment on the petition, maintained that:
• The CA improperly substituted its judgment for that of the executive branch regarding the determination of probable cause.
• The Justice Secretary’s resolution, being an executive determination, was not subject to review via Rule 43 but rather should be challenged byRule 65 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.
• The CA, while ultimately granting the petition by reversing the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, did not conclusively resolve the question of its appellate jurisdiction under Rule 43.

Issue:

Proper Remedy for Review

• Whether the petition for review should have been filed under Rule 43 or if the proper remedial avenue was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Whether the CA had the jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for that of the Justice Secretary regarding the issue of probable cause.

Jurisdiction and Legal Standing

• Whether Alcaraz, as the respondent-appellant, had legal standing to challenge the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice via a petition for review.
• Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court of ParaAaque City held exclusive and original jurisdiction over the subject matter, thereby precluding CA’s review.

Determination of Intent

• Whether the evidence presented, particularly the trajectory of the bullet and the contextual circumstances of the incident, was sufficient to establish the intent to kill—an essential element for attempted homicide.
• Whether acts susceptible of double interpretation can serve as a basis for a conviction of attempted homicide.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)