MADRIGAL vs.

DOJ

Due to a loan that went sour, the city prosecutor filed a criminal case of estafa Par. 1 against
herein respondents.
Respondents filed a motion to suspend arraignment as they appealed their case to the DOJ.
The DOJ Secretary later released a resolution stating that a criminal case of estafa under par.
3 should be filed against the respondents.
Respondents sought for reconsideration. USEC Gutierrez then released a resolution
reversing the DOJ sec decision.
Petitioners sought for the reconsideration of the resolution, but were later on denied. They
appealed to the CA but was denied as well.
Petitioners claim that the court committed grave abuse of discretion as it went against the
first resolution of the DOJ.

ISSUE: WON courts are empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice.

RULING: NO. Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of
Justice, save only when it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. In this case, we find no abuse, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the
Secretary of Justice as to warrant a reversal of the CA Decision.