MADRIGAL vs.

DOJ

FACTS: 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.