1/27/2017 G.R. No.

182573

TodayisFriday,January27,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
BaguioCity

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.182573April23,2014

RAYSHU,Petitioner,
vs.
JAIMEDEE,ENRIQUETOMAGPANTAY,RAMONMIRANDA,LARRYMACILLAN,ANDEDWINSO,
Respondents.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

WeresolvetheRule45petit10nforreviewoncertiorarifiledbypetitionerRayShu(petitioner)seekingthereversal
of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 19, 2007 and its resolution dated April 4, 2008. These
assailedCArulingsannulledtheresolutionoftheSecretaryofJusticefindingprobablecauseforfalsificationagainst
therespondents.

THEFACTUALANTECEDENTS

The petitioner is the President of the 3A Apparel Corporation. He filed a complaint before the National Bureau of
Investigation(NB!)chargingtherespondentsoffalsificationoftwodeedsofrealestatemortgagesubmittedtothe
MetropolitanBankandTrustCompany(A4etrobank).Bothdeedsofrealestatemortgagewereallegedlysignedby
thepetitioner,oneinhisownnamewhiletheotherwasonbehalfof3AApparelCorporation.

Accordingtothepetitioner,therespondentswereemployeesofMetrobank.RespondentsJaimeT.DeeandEdwin
So signed the two deeds of real estate mortgage as witnesses respondents Ramon S. Miranda and Enriqueto I.
Magpantay notarized the deeds of real estate mortgage signed by the petitioner in his own behalf and for the
corporation,respectively.ThesignatureofrespondentLarryMacillan,ontheotherhand,appearedinthedeedsof
realestatemortgagewhichhesubmittedtotheOfficeoftheRegistrarofDeedsforSanJuan,MetroManila.2Based
onthesedeeds,Metrobankforeclosedthetwopropertiessecuringthe3AApparelCorporationsloan.3

After investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of Makati (city prosecutor) charging the
respondentsofthecrimeofforgeryandfalsificationofpublicdocuments.TheNBIsupportedthecomplaintwiththe
QuestionedDocumentsReportNo.7461098(questioneddocumentsreport)issuedbyitsQuestionedDocuments
Division. The questioned documents report states that the signatures of the petitioner which appear on the
questioneddeedsarenotthesameasthestandardsamplesignatureshesubmittedtotheNBI.4

TherespondentsarguedintheircounteraffidavitsthattheyweredeniedtheirrighttodueprocessduringtheNBI
investigationbecausetheagencyneverrequiredthemandMetrobanktosubmitthestandardsamplesignaturesof
thepetitionerforcomparison.5Thefindingscontainedinthequestioneddocumentsreportonlycoveredthesample
signaturesunilaterallysubmittedbythepetitionerascomparedwiththesignaturesappearingonthetwodeedsof
real estate mortgage. An examination of the signatures of the petitioner which appear in several documents in
Metrobankspossessionrevealedthathissignaturesinthequestioneddeedsaregenuine.6Therespondentsalso
arguedthattheexaminationofthedocumentswasconductedwithouttheoriginalcopiesofthequestioneddeedsof
realestatemortgage.

TheRulingoftheCityProsecutor

In a resolution dated June 25, 1999, the city prosecutor found no probable cause against the respondents and,
consequently,dismissedthecomplaintforlackofmerit.

The city prosecutor ruled that the questioned documents report is not conclusive evidence that the respondents
committed the crime charged. It only proves that the sample signatures which were submitted solely by the
petitioneraredifferentfromthesignaturesappearingonthequestioneddeeds.Thepiecesofevidencepresented

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 1/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
before the city prosecutor, which were not made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does not dispute
provethatthesamepersonexecutedthequestioneddeeds.7Thecityprosecutorfoundthatthesimilaritiesinthe
samplesignaturessubmittedbytherespondentsandthesignaturesonthetwodeedsofrealestatemortgageare
sostrikingthatevenalaymancouldseethattheywerewrittenbyoneandthesameperson.

Furthermore,thedocumentsappendedtotherespondentscounteraffidavitshowthatthepetitioneravailedofthe
creditlineandbenefitedfromitsproceeds.Sufficientconsiderationalsosupportedtheexecutionofthetwodeedsof
mortgage.8 The city prosecutor also concluded that the petitioner used his passport when he executed the
questioneddeedsbeforetherespondentsnotariespublicMagpantayandMiranda,withoutinformingthesenotaries
thatthepassporthadalreadybeencancelled.Thisfindingpresumedtheregularityoftheperformanceofdutyofa
notarypublic.9

ThepetitionerappealedthecityprosecutorresolutiontotheSecretaryofJustice.10

TheRulingoftheSecretaryofJustice

TheSecretaryofJusticereversedthecityprosecutorsfindings.Sheruledthatthecityprosecutorfailedtoconsider
theevidentiaryvalueofthefindingsoftheNBIquestioneddocumentsexperts.ThisNBIfindingisentitledtofullfaith
andcreditintheabsenceofproofofirregularityintheperformanceoftheexpertsduties.11

AccordingtotheSecretary,theexpertevidence,thedisclaimerofthepetitionerthathedidnotsignanypromissory
note,thelackofproofofreceiptoftheproceedsoftheloan,alltendedtoprovethathedidnotexecutethesubject
deeds. The complainants evidence is more credible and suffices to establish probable cause for falsification, as
againsttherespondentsquestionableandflawedsupportingdocuments.12

In addition, the finding of the city prosecutor that the petitioners credit line with Metrobank is sufficient
consideration for the execution of the questioned deeds, even if not palpably erroneous, is still gratuitous and
conjectural.13

The Secretary of Justice denied the respondents motion for reconsideration prompting them to file a petition for
certiorariwiththeCA.TherespondentsallegedthattheSecretaryofJusticecommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictioninissuingtheassailedresolution.14

TherulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCAgrantedthepetitionandannulledtheassailedresolutionoftheSecretaryofJustice.15

AccordingtotheCA,therespondentsweredeniedtheirrighttodueprocessintheproceedingsbeforetheNBIand
theSecretaryofJustice.16

In the proceedings before the NBI, the respondents were not furnished a copy of the complaint and were not
likewiserequiredtofiletheiranswerortopresentcountervailingevidence.AlltheevidenceattheNBIlevelwere
solelyprovidedbythepetitioner.17

IntheproceedingsbeforetheSecretaryofJustice,therespondentswerenotfurnishedwiththepetitionforreview
thatthepetitionerfiled.Theywerenotevenrequiredtofiletheiranswernortocomment.18

TheCAalsofoundthatthepersonswhohadbeendirectlyandpersonallyinvolvedintheinvestigationofthecase,
like the NBI investigating agent and the city prosecutor, were convinced that the evidence were not sufficient for
purposesoffilingchargesagainsttherespondents.Therecommendationforthefilingofthecomplaintcamefrom
theNBIchiefsandtheSecretaryofJusticewhodidnotpersonallyinvestigatethecase.19

TheCAaffirmedthefindingsofthecityprosecutorashehadtheopportunitytoexaminethedocumentssubmitted
bytheparties,includingtherespondentsevidencewhichtheNBIdidnotconsider.TheCAdeniedthepetitioners
motionforreconsideration20hence,thepresentpetition.

ThePetitionersPosition

Thepetitionerassignedthefollowingerrors:

First, the CA sweepingly relied on the respondents allegation that they had been denied due process in the
proceedingsbeforetheSecretaryofJusticedespitetheiractiveparticipationintheproceedingsthroughthefilingof
amotionforreconsideration.21

Second,theCAerredingivingcredencetothefindingsoftheinvestigatingNBIagentandthecityprosecutor.The
SecretaryofJusticeistheultimateauthoritywhodecideswhichoftheconflictingtheoriesofthecomplainantandthe
respondentsshouldbegivenweight.22

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 2/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
Third, an NBI experts examination of certain contested documents at the request of a private litigant does not
necessarilynullifytheexaminationmade.Itspurposeistoassistthecourtexercisingjurisdictionoverthecaseinthe
performanceofitsdutytocorrectlysettletheissuerelatedtothedocuments.23

TheRespondentsPosition

In the respondents Comment and Memorandum, they reiterated their argument that they were prevented from
participatingintheproceedingsbeforetheNBIandtheSecretaryofJustice,resultinginthedenialoftheirrightto
dueprocess.24Moreover,thequestioneddocumentsreportissuedbytheNBIwasonesided,thus,castingdoubton
itsveracityandreliabilitythus,itdeservesnoweightandcredence.25TheSecretaryofJusticeerredingivingmore
weighttothequestioneddocumentsreportandthepetitionersselfservingdenials.26

Inaddition,therespondentsarguedthattherewasnoevidencepointingtothemastheperpetratorsoftheforgery,if
indeedtherehadbeenany.Theexpertopinion,disclaimerofthepetitionerandtheallegedlackofproofofreceiptof
the proceeds of the loan could only support a finding that the petitioner did not execute the questioned deeds or
obtainloansfromthebank.Too,therewasnoevidencethattherespondentswouldgainpecuniarybenefitsfromthe
commissionofthecrime.27

TheCourtsruling

Wefindthepetitionmeritorious.

Therespondentswerenotdeniedtheirrighttodueprocess

Wefindnomeritintherespondentsclaimthattheyweredenieddueprocesswhentheywerenotinformedbythe
SecretaryofJusticeofthependencyofthepetitionersappeal.

The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but its absolute absence and lack of opportunity to be heard. Sufficient compliance with the
requirements of due process exists when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for
reconsideration.28

Inthepresentcase,wedonotfinditdisputedthattherespondentsfiledwiththeSecretaryofJusticeamotionfor
reconsiderationofherresolution.Therefore,anyinitialdefectindueprocess,ifany,wascuredbytheremedythe
respondentsavailedof.

OntherespondentsallegationthattheyweredenieddueprocessduringtheNBIinvestigation,westressthatthe
functions of this agency are merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasijudicial
powersandisincapableofgrantinganyrelieftoanyparty.Itcannotevendetermineprobablecause.TheNBIisan
investigativeagencywhosefindingsaremerelyrecommendatory.Itundertakesinvestigationofcrimesuponitsown
initiativeoraspublicwelfaremayrequireinaccordancewithitsmandate.Italsorendersassistancewhenrequested
intheinvestigationordetectionofcrimesinordertoprosecutethepersonsresponsible.29

SincetheNBIsfindingsweremerelyrecommendatory,wefindthatnodenialoftherespondentsdueprocessright
could have taken place the NBIs findings were still subject to the prosecutors and the Secretary of Justices
actionsforpurposesoffindingtheexistenceofprobablecause.

We find it significant that the specimen signatures in the possession of Metrobank were submitted by the
respondents for the consideration of the city prosecutor and eventually of the Secretary of Justice during the
preliminaryinvestigationproceedings.Thus,theseofficershadtheopportunitytoexaminethesesignatures.

TherespondentswerenotlikewisedeniedtheirrighttodueprocesswhentheNBIissuedthequestioneddocuments
report.Wenotethatthisreportmerelystatedthatthesignaturesappearingonthetwodeedsandinthepetitioners
submitted sample signatures were not written by one and the same person.30 Notably, there was no categorical
finding in the questioned documents report that the respondents falsified the documents. This report, too, was
procuredduringtheconductoftheNBIsinvestigationatthepetitionersrequestforassistanceintheinvestigationof
theallegedcrimeoffalsification.Thereportisinconclusiveanddoesnotpreventtherespondentsfromsecuringa
separate documents examination by handwriting experts based on their own evidence. On its own, the NBIs
questioned documents report does not directly point to the respondents involvement in the crime charged. Its
significanceisthat,takentogetherwiththeotherpiecesofevidencesubmittedbythepartiesduringthepreliminary
investigation, these evidence could be sufficient for purposes of finding probable cause the action that the
SecretaryofJusticeundertookinthepresentcase.

TheSecretaryofJusticedidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion

Probablecausepertainstofactsandcircumstancessufficienttosupportawellfoundedbeliefthatacrimehasbeen
committedandtheaccusedisprobablyguiltythereof.31

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 3/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
Itiswellsettledthatinordertoarriveatafindingofprobablecause,theelementsofthecrimechargedshouldbe
present. In determining these elements for purposes of preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support a
prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus, probable cause implies mere
probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a
conviction.32

Theelementsoffalsificationofpublicdocumentsareasfollows:(1)theoffenderisaprivateindividualorapublic
officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position (2) he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC and (3) the falsification was committed in a public, official or
commercialdocument.33

Inlightofthediscussionabove,werulethatthefindingsoftheSecretaryofJusticearemoreinaccordwiththeduty
todeterminetheexistenceofprobablecausethanthefindingsofthecityprosecutor.

Contrarytotherespondentsassertions,theSecretaryofJusticedidnotjustmerelygivecredencetothequestioned
documents report and the petitioners selfserving allegations. The Secretary of Justice made a holistic review of
1wphi1

thepartiessubmittedpiecesofevidenceinrulingthat"theexpertevidence,thedisclaimerofthepetitionerthathe
didnotsignanypromissorynote,thelackofproofofreceiptoftheproceedsoftheloan,alltendtoprovethathedid
notexecutethesubjectdeeds.Also,thefindingintheassailedresolutionthatthecreditlineofthepetitionerwith
Metrobankissufficientconsiderationforhimtohaveexecutedthedeedsisgratuitousandconjectural."

Fromtheevidencesubmittedbytheparties,thepetitionerofferedsufficientevidenceshowingthatfalsificationmight
have been committed and that the respondents might have been responsible therefor. The NBIs questioned
documents report states that the questioned deeds of mortgage and the sample signatures submitted by the
petitioner were not written by one and the same person. It was also shown that the respondents Dee, So,
MagpantayandMirandasignedandparticipatedintheexecutionofthetwodeedsofrealestatemortgageandthe
respondentMacillansignedandsubmittedthesedocumentstotheOfficeoftheRegistrarofDeedsforSanJuan,
Metro Manila. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the passport used in notarizing the documents was a
cancelledpassport.Furthermore,astheSecretaryofJusticefound,therespondentsdidnotshowthatthepetitioner
receivedtheproceedsoftheloan.

Thefindingsofthecityprosecutorarenotproperinapreliminaryinvestigationbutshouldbethreshedoutinafull
blowntrial

Incontrast,thecityprosecutornegatedthequestioneddocumentsreportissuedbytheNBI.Heconcludedthatthe
documents submitted by the respondents showed that even a layman could see the striking similarities of the
allegedsignaturesofthepetitionerinthequestioneddeedsandinthedocumentssubmittedbytherespondents.He
alsoconcludedthatthepetitionermisrepresentedtotherespondentsnotariespublicMirandaandMagpantaythat
thepassportusedinnotarizingthequestioneddeedswasnotyetcancelled.

Inarrivingattheseconclusions,thecityprosecutoralreadydelvedintothemeritsoftherespondentsdefense.This
is contrary to the wellsettled rule that the validity and merits of a partys defense and accusation, as well as
admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary
investigation level.34 The allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a fullblown trial in which
evidence shall be analyzed, weighed, given credence or disproved.35 The preliminary investigation is not the
occasionforthefullandexhaustivedisplayofthepartiesevidence.36Simplyput,indeterminingprobablecause,the
averagemanweighsfactsandcircumstanceswithoutresortingtotherulesofevidencethat,asarule,isoutsidehis
technicalknowledge.37

Thatthefindingsofthecityprosecutorshouldbeventilatedinafullblowntrialishighlightedbytherealitythatthe
authenticityofaquestionedsignaturecannotbedeterminedsolelyuponitsgeneralcharacteristics,oritssimilarities
or dissimilarities with the genuine signature.38 The duty to determine the authenticity of a signature rests on the
judge who must conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusionastoitsauthenticity.Thus,Section22ofRule132oftheRulesofCourtexplicitlyauthorizesthecourt,by
itself,tomakeacomparisonofthedisputedhandwriting"withwritingsadmittedortreatedasgenuinebytheparty
againstwhomtheevidenceisoffered,orprovedtobegenuine."39

Read in this light, the respondents' defense that there are striking similarities in the specimen signatures they
submittedandthoseofthequestioneddeedsisamatterofevidencewhoseconsiderationisproperonlyinafull
blown trial. In that proper forum, the respondents can present evidence to prove their defense and controvert the
questioneddocumentsreporttheycanraiseasissuetheallegedirregularitiesintheconductoftheexamination.

TheSecretaryofJusticehasthepowertoreviewthefindingsofthecityprosecutor

We also find that the CA erred in ruling that the city prosecutor's findings should be given more weight than the
findingsoftheSecretaryofJustice.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 4/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
Thedeterminationofprobablecauseisessentiallyanexecutivefunction,lodgedinthefirstplaceontheprosecutor
whoconductedthepreliminaryinvestigation.Theprosecutor'srulingisreviewablebytheSecretarywho,asthefinal
determinativeauthorityonthematter,hasthepowertoreverse,modifyoraffirmtheprosecutor'sdetermination.40

ItiswellsettledthatthefindingsoftheSecretaryofJusticearenotsubjecttointerferencebythecourts,saveonly
when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he grossly
misapprehendsfactswhenheactsinamannersopatentandgrossastoamounttoanevasionofpositivedutyor
avirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedbylaworwhenheactsoutsidethecontemplationoflaw.41

ContrarytothefindingsoftheCA,wefindthattheSecretaryofJusticedidnotgravelyabusetheexerciseofher
discretioninreversingthefindingsofthecityprosecutor.

WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetitionandREVERSEandSETASIDEthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdated
June19,2007anditsresolutiondatedApril4,2008.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Josefina GuevaraSalonga concurred in by Associate Justice Vicente Q.
RoxasandRamonR.Garcia,Rullo,pp.46.
2
Id.atp.37
3
Id.atpp.36,69
4
Id.atp.37.
5
Id.atpp.3738
6
Id..atp.38
7
Id.atp.38.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 5/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
8
TheInterOfficeLetterofMetrobanksubmittedbytherespondentsshowthebanksapprovalinfavorof3A
anincreasedCreditLineamountingtoUS$1.5million
9
Rolloatpp.3839
10
Idat.p.39
11
Id.atp.71
12
Id.atpp.7172
13
Idatp.72
14
Id.atp.39
15
Id.atp.40
16
Id.atp.42
17
Id
18
Id.
19
Id.atp.44
20
Idat.p.48.
21
Id.atpp.12,1515
22
Id.atpp.1718
23
Idat19
24
Idat.pp.367369
25
Idatp.371
26
Id.at377.
27
Idatpp.374,377
28
P/Insp.ArielS.Artillerov.OrlandoCasimiro,etal.,G.R.No.190569,April25,2012
29
CabarrusJr.v.Bernas,A.C.No.4634.September24,1997.
30
Rollo,p.320
31
Villanuevaetal.v.Caparas,G.R.No.190969,January30,2013.
32
Id.
33
Panunciov.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.165678,July17,2009.
34
Ricafortev.Jurado,G.R.No.154438,September5,2007UnitedCoconutPlantersBankvs.Looyukoet
al.,G.R.No.156337,September28,2007.
35
Ricafortev.Jurado,G.R.No.154438,September5,2007
36
Leeetal.v.KBCBankN.V.,G.R.No.164673,January15,2010.
37
Kalalov.OfficeoftheOmbudsmanetal.,G.R.No.158189,April23,2010.
38
Jimenezetal.v.CommissiononEcumenicalMissionandRelationsoftheUnitedPrysbeterianChurchin
theUnitedStatesofAmericaetal.G.R.No.140472.June10,2002.
39
Id.
40
VillanuevaandtheSecretaryof.Justicev.Caparas,G.R.No.190969:January30,2013Thisisembodied
inSection38,paragraphJ,Chapter7,BookIVoftheRevisedAdministrativeCode.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 6/7
1/27/2017 G.R. No. 182573
41
Villanuevaetalv.Caparas,supra.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_182573_2014.html 7/7