Tan Jr. vs.
Matsura
GR No. 179004, Jan. 9, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati a Complaint-Affidavit
charging the respondents Matsuura and Atty. Tanjutco of Falsification under the RPC
involving a notarized Deed of Trust. Matsuura denied petitioner's charges and
countered that the filing of the complaint was merely a scheme resorted to by petitioner
following their intra-corporate dispute in TF Ventures, Inc. after Matsuura obtained a
favorable resolution for Estafa against petitioner. Matsuura also claims that the transfer
of shareholdings covered by the Deed of Trust was a result of Tan's offer to compromise
the intra-corporate dispute, and insisted that it was petitioner who caused the
notarization of the deed.
Atty. Tanjutco argued that petitioner's admission of having pre-signed the subject deed
only proved that he had willingly assigned his shares in TF Ventures, Inc. to Matsuura.
She argued that petitioner failed to present any proof of her participation in the deed's
falsification and said that she had not yet known Matsuura at the time she notarized the
document.
Issues:
1. Whether the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition filed before it, assuming
the role of a reviewing authority of the Secretary of Justice.
2. Whether the CA erred in upholding the finding of the Office of the City prosecutor
that there exists no probable cause to indict respondents for the crime of falsification.
Held:
1. No.
The courts may review probable-cause findings of public prosecutors where
grave abuse of discretion is shown. While the findings of prosecutors are reviewable by
the DOJ, this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising their powers of
review with respect to the DOJ's findings.
When a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support a finding a
probable cause is ignored, the CA may take recognizance of the case via petition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA's exercise of power to review was the proper and
most prudent course to take after the Secretary of Justice had successively issued
several resolutions with varying findings of facts and conclusions of law on the existence
of probable cause, even contrary to the findings of the Office of the City Prosecutor that
conducted the preliminary investigation. The clear issue on the Secretary's appreciation
of facts commands a review by the court to determine if grave abuse of discretion
attended the discharge of his functions.
2. No.
To warrant an indictment for falsification, it is necessary to show during the
preliminary investigation that the persons to be charged are responsible for the acts
that define the crime. Contrary to this, however, there were no sufficient allegations and
evidence presented on the specific acts attributed to Matsuura and Atty. Tanjutco that
would show their respective actual participation in the alleged alteration or
intercalation. Petitioner's broad statement that the deed was falsified after it was stolen
by Matsuura merits no consideration in finding probable cause.
Affidavits and evidence presented during a preliminary investigation must at
least show the elements of the crime and the particular participation of each of the
respondents in its commission. Otherwise, there would be no basis for a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed, and that the persons being charged are
probably guilty thereof. Probable cause can only find support in facts and circumstances
that would lead a reasonable mind to believe that the person being charged warrants a
prosecution. Petitioner had failed to adequately show during the preliminary
investigation all the elements of the offense. Thus, the CA is correct to affirm the finding
of the Office of the City Prosecutor that there exists no probable cause to indict
respondents for the crime of falsification.
Questions and Answers:
1. In what case/instance may the courts review the findings of prosecutors?
The courts may review the findings of prosecutors in exceptional cases in which grave
abuse of discretion is committed, as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence
to support a finding of probable cause is ignored.
2. What is probable cause?
Probable cause are such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable
mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted.
3. What is the nature of a finding of probable cause?
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely
than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. It
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over
the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
