CASE DIGEST: RAY SHU, Petitioner, vs.
JAIME DEE, ENRIQUETO
MAGPANTAY, RAMON MIRANDA, LARRY MACILLAN, AND EDWIN SO,
Respondents. (G.R. No. 182573; April 23, 2014)
FACTS: The petitioner is the President of the 3A Apparel Corporation. He filed a
complaint before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) charging the respondents of
falsification of two deeds of real estate mortgage submitted to the Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company. Both 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.
According to the petitioner, the respondents were employees of Metrobank.
Respondents Jaime T. Dee and Edwin So signed the two deeds of real estate mortgage as
witnesses; respondents Ramon S. Miranda and Enriqueto I. Magpantay notarized the
deeds of real estate mortgage signed by the petitioner in his own behalf and for the
corporation, respectively. The signature of respondent Larry Macillan, on the other
hand, appeared in the deeds of real estate mortgage which he submitted to the Office of
the Registrar of Deeds for San Juan, Metro Manila. Based on these deeds, Metrobank
foreclosed the two properties securing the 3A Apparel Corporations loan.
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.
The respondents argued in their counter-affidavits that they were denied their right to
due process during the NBI investigation because the agency never required them and
Metrobank to submit the standard sample signatures of the petitioner for comparison.
The findings contained in the questioned documents report only covered the sample
signatures unilaterally submitted by the petitioner as compared with the signatures
appearing on the two deeds of real estate mortgage. An examination of the signatures of
the petitioner which appear in several documents in Metrobank's possession revealed
that his signatures in the questioned deeds are genuine. The respondents also argued
that the examination of the documents was conducted without the original copies of the
questioned deeds of real estate mortgage.
The city prosecutor found no probable cause against the respondents and, consequently,
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The city prosecutor ruled that the questioned
documents report is not conclusive evidence that the respondents committed the crime
charged.
The petitioner appealed the city prosecutor resolution to the Secretary of Justice who
reversed the city prosecutors findings.
The Secretary of Justice denied the respondent's 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. The CA granted the petition and annulled
the assailed resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
ISSUE: Were respondents denied of their right to due process?
HELD: 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.
In the present case, we do not find it disputed that the respondents filed with the
Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration of her resolution. Therefore, any initial
defect in due process, if any, was cured by the remedy the respondents availed of.
On the respondent's allegation that they were denied due process during the NBI
investigation, we stress that the functions of this agency are merely investigatory and
informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of
granting any relief to any party. It cannot even determine probable cause. The NBI is an
investigative agency whose findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes
investigation of crimes upon its own initiative or as public welfare may require in
accordance with its mandate. It also renders assistance when requested in the
investigation or detection of crimes in order to prosecute the persons responsible.
Since the NBIs findings were merely recommendatory, we find that no denial of the
respondents due process right could have taken place; the NBIs findings were still
subject to the prosecutors and the Secretary of Justices actions for purposes of finding
the existence of probable cause.
We find it significant that the specimen signatures in the possession of Metrobank were
submitted by the respondents for the consideration of the city prosecutor and eventually
of the Secretary of Justice during the preliminary investigation proceedings. Thus, these
officers had the opportunity to examine these signatures.
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 petitioners submitted sample
signatures were not written by one and the same person. 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 NBIs questioned documents report does not directly point to
the respondents involvement in the crime charged. Its significance is that, taken together
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.
