Case Digest (G.R. No. 182573)
Facts:
Ray Shu v. Jaime Dee, Enriqueto Magpantay, Ramon Miranda, Larry Macillan, and Edwin So, G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ray Shu, president of 3A Apparel Corporation, filed an NBI complaint accusing respondents — all bank employees of Metrobank — of falsifying two deeds of real estate mortgage (one signed by him personally, the other on behalf of 3A Apparel). The questioned deeds were used by Metrobank to foreclose the properties securing the corporation’s loan. The NBI’s Questioned Documents Division issued Questioned Documents Report No. 746-1098 concluding that the signatures on the deeds were not the same as the petitioner’s submitted sample signatures.
After the NBI investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of Makati charging respondents with forgery and falsification of public documents. In their counter-affidavits the respondents contended they were denied due process during the NBI probe because the NBI did not require Metrobank or the respondents to submit sample signatures; they also submitted documents showing that signatures in Metrobank’s possession matched the questioned deeds and claimed the NBI examination was conducted without the original deeds.
In a resolution dated June 25, 1999 the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding the questioned documents report inconclusive and noting documentary evidence (including Metrobank specimens and an Inter Office Letter evidencing an increased credit line) that tended to show the same person executed the deeds and that the petitioner benefited from the credit line. The petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the city prosecutor and found probable cause for falsification, giving weight to the NBI expert report and other indicia (the petitioner’s disclaimer, lack of proof of receipt of loan proceeds, and a cancelled passport used in notarization).
The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice. The CA granted the petition and annulled the Secretary’s resolution, concluding the respondents were denied due process at both the NBI and Secretary of Justice stages and that the city prosecutor’s findings — derived from personal examination of evidence he received but the NBI lacked — were entitled to more weight. The CA’s d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the respondents denied their right to due process in the preliminary proceedings before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice?
- Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the city prosecutor’s dismissal and finding probable cause...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)