G.R. No. 237845 - BDO Life Assurance, Inc. vs. Palad

The case involves BDO Life Assurance, Inc. (formerly Generali Pilipinas Life Assurance Co., Inc.) filing criminal charges for attempted estafa through falsification of public documents.
The fraud allegedly involved the submission of falsified documents related to insurance claims, with the purpose of defrauding the petitioner of an insurance benefit amounting to nearly Php6,240,000.00.
The complaint was directed against several individuals, including Raynel Thomas V. Alvarado (also known as Carl Andrada), Genevie B. Gragas (alias Melanie Andrada), Vincent Paul L. Amposta, Teodoro M. Olguera, Cynthia O. Taniegra, Armel M. Santos, Imelda B. Neo, and respondent Atty. Emerson U. Palad.

Two insurance claims were involved: two Personal Accident claims based on the alleged deaths of spouses Carlos and Norma Andrada, and a separate motor vehicle insurance claim for a Ford Expedition.
Documents submitted included death certificates, police blotter excerpts, official receipts, certificates of registration, and a professional driver’s license.

An external investigator hired by the petitioner uncovered significant irregularities in the submitted documents, including non-existent identities and falsified records.
Key findings included the absence of concrete records from the Police, the LTO, and even the National Statistics Office which contradicted the documents’ claims.

In July 2010, after discovering the fraudulent documents and suspecting a scam, the petitioner coordinated an entrapment operation in its Makati office.
During the operation, Alvarado, Gragas, and Palad arrived to claim the insurance proceeds, resulting in their arrest by the National Bureau of Investigation.

It was later revealed that Alvarado’s true identity differed from that initially claimed and that Gragas and others used fictitious names.
The police report and other documents, although appearing valid on the surface, were later determined to be part of a fabricated scheme aimed at defrauding the insurance company.

The Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati City found probable cause only against Alvarado and Gragas after examining affidavits and evidence.
Other respondents, including Palad, were not found to have sufficient evidence tying them actively to the conspiratorial scheme, and their complaints were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

On appeal, the petitioner challenged the dismissal of charges against certain respondents, including Palad, alleging that they were integral to the fraudulent act.
The Court of Appeals (CA) initially ruled in favor of the petitioner by reversing parts of the Prosecutor’s findings and ordering indictments against some respondents.
Subsequently, on reconsideration, the CA amended its decision to exclude Palad from the charge sheet, finding that his mere presence and role as client counsel did not constitute sufficient evidence for conspiracy.

Whether the CA erred in amending its earlier decision by excluding Atty. Emerson U. Palad from the charge sheet for attempted estafa through falsification of public documents.

The petitioner contends that Palad, as a lawyer and family member (brother-in-law of co-conspirator Amposta), was a willing participant in the fraudulent scheme.
The petitioner argues that Palad’s actions during the entrapment operation, such as responding to verification questions and presenting his IBP identification, indicate active participation and complicity.

Whether the determination of probable cause by the lower tribunals, particularly the finding excluding Palad, was made with grave abuse of discretion.

The petitioner asserts that the acting prosecutor and the CA adopted an improper standard by not recognizing evidence that could show Palad’s involvement.
The issue also involves the threshold of evidence required in a preliminary investigation compared to the evidence needed for a criminal conviction.

The adequacy of the evidence in establishing active participation or overt acts that may qualify as conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code.

The petitioner emphasizes that an overt act in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme was present, thereby warranting Palad’s inclusion.
Conversely, the petitioner fails to produce clear and convincing evidence directly linking Palad to the overt act, as required by law.