G.R. No. 182573 , April 23, 2014
RAY SHU, Petitioner, vs. JAIME DEE, ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, RAMON MIRANDA, LARRY MACILLAN, AND EDWIN SO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ray Shu, President of 3A Apparel Corporation, filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) charging respondents, employees of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank), with falsification of two deeds of real estate mortgage submitted to Metrobank. The deeds, one signed by Shu personally and the other on behalf of the corporation, were used to foreclose properties securing the corporation’s loan. Respondents Dee and So signed as witnesses; respondents Miranda and Magpantay notarized the deeds; and respondent Macillan’s signature appeared on the deeds submitted to the Registrar of Deeds. The NBI’s Questioned Documents Report concluded that the signatures on the deeds differed from the standard sample signatures submitted by Shu. The City Prosecutor of Makati dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause, noting that evidence submitted by respondents (including specimen signatures from Metrobank) showed the signatures were genuine, that Shu benefited from the credit line, and presuming regularity in the notarization. The Secretary of Justice reversed the City Prosecutor, finding probable cause based on the NBI report, Shu’s disclaimer, and lack of proof of loan receipt. The Court of Appeals annulled the Secretary of Justice’s resolution, ruling respondents were denied due process in the NBI and Department of Justice proceedings and affirming the City Prosecutor’s findings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for falsification against the respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held:
1. Respondents were not denied due process. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Any initial defect was cured when respondents filed a motion for reconsideration with the Secretary of Justice. The NBI’s functions are merely investigatory and recommendatory; it has no quasi-judicial powers, so no denial of due process could occur at that stage. The respondents’ evidence was considered by the City Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice.
2. The Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the City Prosecutor’s finding. The Secretary of Justice has the authority to resolve appeals from prosecutors and reverse their findings if warranted. Her finding of probable cause was based on substantial evidence, including the NBI Questioned Documents Report (which is entitled to weight in the absence of proof of irregularity), the petitioner’s denial of signing the deeds, and the lack of conclusive proof of receipt of loan proceeds. The determination of probable cause does not require clear and convincing evidence, only evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The Court found no arbitrariness or capriciousness in the Secretary’s evaluation.
The Supreme Court reinstated the resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding probable cause for falsification against the respondents.