Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ray Shu vs. Jaime Dee
Ray Shu vs. Jaime Dee
JAIME DEE
FACTS:
In his complaint for falsification of public document before the NBI
against Jaime (Dee) and Edwin (So), employees of Metrobank, Ramon
(Miranda) and Enriqueto (Magpantay), Ray (Shu) alleged that Jaime
and Edwin falsified his signatures in two deeds of real estate
mortgage, one in his now name, and another in the name of 3A
Corporation. Jaime and Edwin signed the deeds, Enriqueto and Ramon
notarised it, and Larry (Macillan) acted as witness. Bases on these
deeds, the Metrobank foreclosed the properties. After investigation,
the NBI filed a complaint for falsification of public documents against
the respondents, attaching to it Questioned Documents Report no.
746-1098 showing that the signatures of Ray appearing on the deeds
are not the same as the standard sample he submitted to the NBI.
Averring lack of due process because the NBI never required them and
Metrobank to submit the standard samples of Ray for comparison, the
respondents denied committing falsification, arguing that they have in
their possession standard samples of Ray revealing that his signatures
were genuine. They also aver that the NBI conducted the examination
without the original copies of the questioned documents.
After preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor dismissed
the complaint, holding that the report is not conclusive evidence that
the respondents committed falsification, and only proves that the
sample signatures presented by Ray are not the same appearing in the
deeds. Other documents submitted to the prosecutor which were not
examined by the NBI and which Ray does not dispute disprove the
alleged falsification.
Further, Ray availed of the credit line and
benefited from the proceeds of the loan. The fact that Ray presented
a cancelled passport to the notary without disclosing it to them also
presumed the official performance of duty by a notary.
Ray filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, which
reversed the recommendation of the prosecutor, but the respondents
filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which sided in
their favour. According to the CA, the respondents were denied their
right to due process in the proceedings before the NBI and the
Secretary of Justice. They were not given an opportunity to present
countervailing evidence or were furnished a copy of the complaint at
the NBI. The Secretary of Justice, on the other hand, did not even
require them to comment or reply when the petition for review was
filed by Ray. The persons who personally investigated the case, the
NBI investigating agent, and the city prosecutor, and who had the
opportunity to examine the documents were not convinced of the
evidence and did not recommend the filing of the complaint; only the
NBI chief and director and the Secretary of Justice did.
Ray thus filed a petition for review on certiorari with the CA. He
assails the CAs reliance on the respondents assertion that they were
denied due process at the NBI and at the DOJ, its giving credence to
the findings of the NBI investigating agent and the prosecutor, and
argues that the NBI examination of the documents at the request of a
private litigant does not nullify the examination, and its purpose was
merely to assist the court in the performance of its duties. On the
other hand, the respondents adopt the findings of the CA and argue
otherwise.
Issue/s:
Whether or not probable cause exists to charge the respondents with
falsification of public documents, contrary to the findings of the CA.
HELD:
We find the petition meritorious.
The respondents were not denied their right to due process
We find no merit in the respondents claim that they were denied due
process when they were not informed by the Secretary of Justice of
the pendency of the petitioners appeal.
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.
In the present case, we do not find it disputed that the respondents
filed with the Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration of her
resolution. Therefore, any initial defect in due process, if any, was
cured by the remedy the respondents availed of.