G.R. No. 143591 November 23, 2007
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Magdaleno Peña filed a civil case for agent’s compensation against Urban Bank and its officers, the petitioners. In their Motion to Dismiss the civil case, petitioners attached four documents to support their claim that Peña was appointed as an agent by Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), not by them. In reaction, Peña filed a criminal complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor, alleging these documents were falsified, as the signatories were not actual ISCI officers and the signatures were forged, and that petitioners knowingly introduced them as evidence. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed four Informations for Introducing Falsified Documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code with the MTCC, which issued warrants for petitioners’ arrest.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, arguing they were denied due process in the preliminary investigation as they were not required to submit counter-affidavits, that the complaint-affidavit was based not on personal knowledge, and that the civil case posed a prejudicial question. The MTCC denied the motion, ruling that for offenses within its jurisdiction, a preliminary investigation in the full sense is not mandatory, and that by posting bail, petitioners waived their right to question the arrest warrants. The Court of Appeals dismissed their subsequent petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the prosecutor and judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents despite the alleged procedural defects in the preliminary investigation and the nature of the complaint-affidavit; and (2) whether the civil case for agent’s compensation constitutes a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the criminal proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On procedural due process, the Court held that for offenses punishable by imprisonment of less than four years, two months, and one day—which fall within the jurisdiction of the MTCC—the procedure under Section 9 of Rule 112 applies. This rule allows the prosecutor to act on the complaint based on the complainant’s affidavits and supporting documents within ten days, without mandatorily requiring the submission of the respondent’s counter-affidavit. Thus, the prosecutor did not violate petitioners’ right to due process.
On the substantive finding of probable cause, the Court ruled that the prosecutor and judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Probable cause merely requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The complaint-affidavit and its attachments, alleging the documents were falsified and petitioners knowingly used them in judicial proceedings, sufficed to establish probable cause for the crime under Article 172. The claim that the affidavit was not based on personal knowledge goes into the weight of evidence, which is a matter for full trial. Finally, the civil case for agent’s compensation does not pose a prejudicial question. The resolution of whether an agency relationship existed is not determinative of the criminal issue of whether petitioners knowingly introduced falsified documents; the elements and facts to be proved in the two cases are distinct.