Upretne: !court
Upretne: !court
upretne <!Court
:Illlagnio Qtitp
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
BRION,J.:
deeds of real estate mortgage were allegedly signed by the petitioner, one in
his own name while the other was on behalf of 3A Apparel Corporation.
After investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor
of Makati (city prosecutor) charging the respondents of the crime of forgery
and falsification of public documents. The NBI supported the complaint
with the Questioned Documents Report No. 746-1098 (questioned
documents report) issued by its Questioned Documents Division. The
questioned documents report states that the signatures of the petitioner
which appear on the questioned deeds are not the same as the standard
sample signatures he submitted to the NBI.4
The city prosecutor ruled that the questioned documents report is not
conclusive evidence that the respondents committed the crime charged. It
2 Id. at p. 37
3 Id. at pp. 36, 69
4 Id. at p. 37.
5 Id. at pp. 37-38
6 Id.. at p. 38
only proves that the sample signatures which were submitted solely by the
petitioner are different from the signatures appearing on the questioned
deeds. The pieces of evidence presented before the city prosecutor, which
were not made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does not
dispute prove that the same person executed the questioned deeds.7 The city
prosecutor found that the similarities in the sample signatures submitted by
the respondents and the signatures on the two deeds of real estate mortgage
are so striking that even a layman could see that they were written by one
and the same person.
7 Id. at p. 38.
8 The Inter Office Letter of Metrobank submitted by the respondents show the bank’s approval in
favor of 3A an increased Credit Line amounting to US$1.5 million;
9 Rollo at pp. 38-39
10 Id at. p. 39
11 Id. at p. 71
12 Id. at pp. 71-72
13 Id at p. 72
The Secretary of Justice denied the respondents’ motion for
reconsideration prompting them to file a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The respondents alleged that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
assailed resolution.14
According to the CA, the respondents were denied their right to due
process in the proceedings before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice.16
In the proceedings before the NBI, the respondents were not furnished
a copy of the complaint and were not likewise required to file their answer
or to present countervailing evidence. All the evidence at the NBI level
were solely provided by the petitioner.17
The CA also found that the persons who had been directly and
personally involved in the investigation of the case, like the NBI
investigating agent and the city prosecutor, were convinced that the evidence
were not sufficient for purposes of filing charges against the respondents.
The recommendation for the filing of the complaint came from the NBI
chiefs and the Secretary of Justice who did not personally investigate the
case.19
14 Id. at p. 39
15 Id. at p. 40
16 Id. at p. 42
17 Id
18 Id.
19 Id. at p. 44
20 Id at. p. 48.
Justice despite their active participation in the proceedings through the filing
of a motion for reconsideration.21
We find no merit in the respondent’s claim that they were denied due
process when they were not informed by the Secretary of Justice of the
pendency of the petitioner’s appeal.
21
Id. at pp. 12, 15-15
22 Id. at pp. 17-18
23 Id at 19
24
Id at. pp. 367-369
25 Id at p. 371
26 Id. at 377.
27 Id at pp. 374, 377
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
The respondents were not likewise denied their right to due process
when the NBI issued the questioned documents report. We note that this
report merely stated that the signatures appearing on the two deeds and in
the petitioner’s 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 procured during the conduct of the NBI’s investigation at the
petitioner’s request for assistance in the investigation of the alleged crime of
falsification. The report is inconclusive and does not prevent the
respondents from securing a separate documents examination by
handwriting experts based on their own evidence. On its own, the NBI’s
questioned documents report does not directly point to the respondents’
involvement in the crime charged. Its significance is that, taken together
28 P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando Casimiro, et al., G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012;
29 Cabarrus Jr. v. Bernas, A.C. No. 4634. September 24, 1997.
30 Rollo, p. 320
with the other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties during the
preliminary investigation, these evidence could be sufficient for purposes
of finding probable cause – the action that the Secretary of Justice
undertook in the present case.
34 Ricaforte v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007; United Coconut Planters Bank vs.
Looyuko et al., G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007.
35 Ricaforte v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007
36 Lee et al. v. KBC Bank N.V., G.R. No. 164673, January 15, 2010.
37 Kalalo v. Office of the Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010.
38 Jimenez et al. v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Prysbeterian
Church in the United States of America et al. G.R. No. 140472. June 10, 2002.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 182573
Read in this light, the respondents' defense that there are striking
similarities in the specimen signatures they submitted and those of the
questioned deeds is a matter of evidence whose consideration is proper only
in a full-blown trial. In that proper forum, the respondents can present
evidence to prove their defense and controvert the questioned documents
report; they can raise as issue the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the
examination.
The Secretmy of Justice has the power to review the findings of the city
prosecutor
We also find that the CA ened in ruling that the city prosecutor's
findings should be given more weight than the findings of the Secretary of
Justice.
Ci1!#!iftJ
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
39 I
d.
40 Villanueva and the Secretary of .Justice v. Caparas, G.R. No. 190969 : January 30, 20 13; This is
embodied in Section 38, paragraph l, Chapter 7, Book IV ofthe Revised Administrative Code.
41 Villanueva et a/ v. Caparas, supra.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 182573
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
....,,y
ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO J
Associate Justice
. j(}v (tM/
ESTELA : f RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION