GR 173844; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173844; April 11, 2012
LIGAYA P. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, ETC., DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Hermosa Savings and Loans Bank, Inc. (HSLBI) obtained forty loans from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 1994. Petitioner Atty. Ligaya P. Cruz, as HSLBI’s in-house legal counsel, rendered a legal opinion that the Investment Enterprises, which were the purported sub-borrowers under a Subsidiary Loan Agreement, were duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing. She also notarized supporting deeds of assignment. In 2001, a Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas examination revealed that these Investment Enterprises were non-existent, their supporting documents were forged, and the collateral titles were spurious or already encumbered.
DBP filed a complaint for forty counts of estafa through falsification against HSLBI officers and Atty. Cruz. The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially dismissed the case against her but, upon DBP’s motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and ordered the filing of informations. The Secretary of Justice ultimately directed the filing of forty counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code against all respondents, including Cruz. Her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to prosecute petitioner for estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, merely requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. It does not demand absolute certainty or evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found a sufficient basis to establish probable cause against petitioner. As legal counsel, she actively participated by issuing a legal opinion affirming the legal existence and good standing of the Investment Enterprises, which were later proven fictitious. This representation was crucial in inducing DBP to approve the loans. Her role was not merely ministerial; by affixing her signature and notarizing documents, she lent legitimacy to the fraudulent scheme, causing damage to DBP. Her marital relation to the bank’s president further supported the inference of knowledge. The subsequent modifications in the DOJ resolutions demonstrated a careful review, not capriciousness. Thus, the finding of probable cause was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.