Case Digest (G.R. No. 182573)
Facts:
In Ray Shu v. Jaime Dee et al. (G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014), petitioner Ray Shu, President of 3A Apparel Corporation, filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in 1998 for falsification of two real estate mortgage deeds submitted to Metrobank. The deeds were purportedly signed by Shu—one in his personal capacity and the other on behalf of the corporation—with respondents Jaime T. Dee and Edwin So as witnesses; Enriqueto I. Magpantay and Ramon S. Miranda as notaries public; and Larry Macillan as the officer who filed the documents for registration. Metrobank foreclosed the mortgaged properties on the basis of these deeds. The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report concluded that the signatures on the deeds did not match Shu’s sample signatures, prompting the filing of criminal charges for forgery and falsification with the Makati City Prosecutor. In a June 25, 1999 resolution, the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, findingCase Digest (G.R. No. 182573)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Ray Shu is President of 3A Apparel Corporation.
- Respondents Jaime T. Dee, Edwin So, Ramon S. Miranda, Enriqueto I. Magpantay, and Larry Macillan are employees and officers of Metrobank and the Office of the Registrar of Deeds.
- Complaint and NBI Investigation
- Petitioner filed a complaint with the NBI for falsification of two real estate mortgage deeds allegedly signed by him (one personally, one for the corporation).
- Respondents Dee and So signed as witnesses; Miranda and Magpantay notarized; Macillan filed the deeds for registration.
- The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report No. 746-1098 concluded that the signatures on the deeds did not match the sample signatures submitted by petitioner.
- City Prosecutor’s Resolution
- On June 25, 1999, the City Prosecutor of Makati dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.
- He found the NBI report inconclusive, gave weight to documents and specimen signatures from Metrobank showing similarity, and upheld the regularity of notarization.
- Secretary of Justice’s Resolution
- The Secretary of Justice reversed the City Prosecutor on August 4, 2000, finding probable cause based on the NBI report, petitioner’s disclaimer of signature, and lack of proof of loan proceeds received.
- She denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals’ Decision
- CA granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, annulling the Secretary’s resolution.
- It held respondents were denied due process at the NBI and Secretary level and favored the City Prosecutor’s findings.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, seeking reversal of the CA’s June 19, 2007 decision and April 4, 2008 resolution.
Issues:
- Whether respondents were denied their right to due process during the NBI investigation and Secretary of Justice proceedings.
- Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Prosecutor’s finding of no probable cause.
- Whether there was sufficient probable cause to charge respondents with falsification of public documents.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)