G.R. No. 163745 - Go vs. Court of Appeals

Fernando Go, the petitioner, filed two complaint‐affidavits on November 26, 2002 for estafa and falsification of public document against his sister, Pilar Lim, and his nephew, Henry Lim.
The case involved a parcel of land in Cotabato City originally possessed by his mother, Laureana Lu, for which a Miscellaneous Sales Patent was applied.

On March 18, 1976, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-136 was issued in Laureana’s name.
Pilar received the title but allegedly did not turn it over to Laureana; instead, she had Laureana execute a Waiver of Rights on July 28, 1976, thereby waiving her right to the application in favor of Henry.
On August 6, 1976, Fernando and his siblings executed a separate Waiver in which they waived their rights to Laureana’s application and did not object to her waiver favoring Henry.
Further, Laureana executed a Last Will and Testament on September 14, 1976, bequeathing the land to Henry, and later executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on October 4, 1976 in favor of Henry.
Fernando later learned of the issuance of the title (OCT No. P-136) only on March 2, 1998 when informed by the City Treasurer of Cotabato City about tax arrears.

Fernando contended that the four documents (the Waiver of Rights, the Waiver by him and his siblings, the Last Will and Testament, and the Deed of Sale) were executed through deceit and manipulation.
He argued that the respondents deceived him and his siblings by representing that Laureana’s application could not be approved and that executing these documents would facilitate the titling process only in favor of Henry.
In contrast, Pilar claimed that she had occupied the property with the consent of both Laureana and Fernando since 1957 and maintained that Fernando was fully aware of the application for titling, even having witnessed the notarized execution of the Waiver of Rights.

Following an investigation, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged Pilar and Henry Lim with estafa through falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge alleged that on or about March 2, 1998, by means of a forged Waiver dated August 6, 1976, the respondents falsely manifested that Fernando consented to the transfer of title, which later led to the cancellation of the OCT and issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-118643 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 223.

Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation with a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest, which was denied by the trial court that found probable cause for arrest.
Despite the motion for reconsideration, the matter was elevated to the Department of Justice (DOJ), where the respondents contended that the crime had prescribed and that the finding of probable cause was contrary to law and the evidence on record.
On October 9, 2003, the DOJ ordered the City Prosecutor to move for the withdrawal of the information based on the presumption of genuineness of the notarized documents and the argument that the crime had prescribed, since the waivers and title were executed in 1976 and the complaint-affidavits were only filed in 2002.

Fernando Go subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the DOJ’s resolutions and the subsequent withdrawal of information.
The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition on technical and procedural grounds, specifically citing:

The verification and certification of non-forum shopping did not fully comply with the statutory requirements, as it was not based on authentic records or personal knowledge as mandated.
The petition contained deficiencies such as the use of mere photocopies of the DOJ resolutions and trial court order, which contravened Section 3, Rule 46, and Section 4 as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC of the Rules of Court.
Improper service of the petition, particularly the failure to serve a copy on the Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the Secretary of Justice in appeals.

Fernando argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition on technical grounds and in its strict interpretation of the Rules of Court.
He contended that the verification, though signed, was sufficient; that service should be limited to the respondent and not extend to the Office of the Solicitor General; and that his failure to attach certain certified copies was due to inadvertence, warranting a more liberal construction of the rules.
Additionally, he argued that the evidence on record regarding the execution of the Waiver should have been scrutinized further, particularly given the contradictory findings of probable cause from the City Prosecutor’s Office and the DOJ.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to technical deficiencies, including:

The verification and certification of non-forum shopping not strictly adhering to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
The failure to serve the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General as required by the Rules of Court.
The use and sufficiency of photocopies of the DOJ resolutions and trial court order in lieu of certified true copies.

Whether there was probable cause to hold the respondents liable for estafa through falsification of public document, given:

The presumption of genuineness and due execution of the notarized documents presented by the respondents.
The factual context that Fernando Go had prior knowledge of the property transactions and the execution of the Waiver, undermining his claim of deceit.
The absence of evidence showing that the respondents used statements other than those contained in the executed Waiver to defraud him.