G.R. No. 160257 ; January 31, 2006
ROBERT LASTRILLA, Petitioner, vs. RAFAEL A. GRANDA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rafael Granda, a legal heir, filed a complaint for falsification of public documents against petitioner Robert Lastrilla and others. The complaint alleged that three Deeds of Absolute Sale, dated December 7, 1985, through which the deceased spouses Rafael and Aurora Granda purportedly sold several Tacloban City properties to Lastrilla and his relatives, were forged. The deeds were notarized and Lastrilla signed as an instrumental witness. Respondent claimed the spouses’ signatures were falsified, a fact supported by a PNP Crime Laboratory report. He further alleged the deeds were antedated, as the actual transactions occurred around 1999-2000.
Respondent presented circumstantial evidence to prove antedating: a certification that the alleged witness, Silvina Granda, was cloistered in a monastery throughout 1985; a 1999 General Power of Attorney where Aurora Granda still exercised ownership over the properties; lease contracts executed in 2000 concerning the sold properties; and the deeds’ registration only in February 2000. Petitioner and his co-respondents countered that the sales were genuine, negotiated directly with Aurora Granda, and the consideration was paid.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Department of Justice’s finding of probable cause to charge petitioner Robert Lastrilla with falsification of public documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the finding of probable cause. Probable cause, for purposes of filing an information, is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is based on evidence showing more than bare suspicion but less than evidence justifying conviction. The Court emphasized that in a petition for review of the DOJ’s resolution, it does not act as an appellate court to review the prosecutor’s findings on a full-blown trial basis, but determines whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion.
Here, the Court found no such abuse. Respondent presented substantial circumstantial evidence—the PNP report on signature discrepancies, the witness’s unavailability in 1985, documents showing the deceased vendor’s continued exercise of ownership years after the purported sale, and the long delay in registration—which, taken together, sufficiently supported a well-founded belief that the deeds were falsified and antedated. Petitioner’s denial and claim of a valid transaction constituted a defense best ventilated in a full trial. The prosecutor’s duty is merely to determine the existence of probable cause, not to decide on the accused’s ultimate guilt or innocence. The evidence on record provided a reasonable ground to presume petitioner participated in the falsification as an instrumental witness, thereby justifying the filing of the informations.