Case#6 GR No.

182573 2014-04-23
RAY SHU, Petitioner, vs.
JAIME DEE, ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, RAMON MIRANDA,
LARRY MACILLAN, AND EDWIN SO, Respondents

Facts:
 Petitioner, president of the 3A Apparel Corporation, filed a complaint
before the NBI charging the respondents of falsification of two deeds of
real estate mortgage submitted to Metrobank.

 Both deeds of real estate mortgage were allegedly signed by the petitioner,
one in his own name while the other was on behalf of the corporation.

 According to the petitioner, the respondents were employees of

Metrobank.

 After investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of
Makati charging the respondents of the crime of forgery and falsification
of public documents.

 The respondents argued in their counter-affidavits that they were denied

their right to due process during the NBI investigation because the
agency never required them and Metrobank to submit the standard sample
signatures of the petitioner for comparison.

 The findings contained in the questioned documents report only covered

the sample signatures unilaterally submitted by the petitioner as compared
with the signatures appearing on the two deeds of real estate mortgage.

 An examination of the signatures of the petitioner which appear in several

documents in Metrobank’s possession revealed that his signatures in the
questioned deeds are genuine.

Procedural History:
Ruling of the City Prosecutor:
  found no probable cause against the respondents and, consequently,
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
 pieces of evidence presented before the city prosecutor, which were not
made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does not dispute, prove
that the same person executed the questioned deeds.
 Petitioner appealed the city prosecutor’ resolution to the Secretary of
Justice.

Ruling of the Secretary of Justice:

 reversed the city prosecutor’s findings.
 city prosecutor failed to consider the evidentiary value of the findings of
the NBI questioned documents experts.
 file a petition for certiorari with the CA (Rule 65)

CA:
 granted the petition and annulled the assailed resolution of the
Secretary of Justice
 respondents were denied their right to due process in the proceedings
before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice
 before the NBI, the respondents were not furnished a copy of the complaint
and were not likewise required to file their answer or to present
countervailing evidence
 before the Secretary of Justice, the respondents were not furnished with the
petition for review that the petitioner filed. They were not even required to
file their answer nor to comment

Issue:
Whether or not Respondents were denied of their right to due process.

Petitioner’s Contention:
 Respondents already had active participation in the proceedings before the
Secretary of Justice through the filing of a motion for reconsideration

Respondent’s Contention:
  They were prevented from participating in the proceedings before the NBI
and the Secretary of Justice, resulting in the denial of their right to due
process.

Ruling:
No, Respondents were not denied of their right to due process.

Main Ruling:

In P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando Casimiro, et al., the Court ruled that
the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. What the law
prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but its absolute absence and lack
of opportunity to be heard. Sufficient compliance with the requirements of due
process exists when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for
reconsideration.

In the present case, the Court did not find it disputed that the respondents
filed with the Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration of her resolution.
Therefore, any initial defect in due process, if any, was cured by the remedy the
respondents availed of.

With regards to NBI:

In Cabarrus Jr. v. Bernas, it was held that the functions of the NBI are
merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-
judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot
even determine probable cause. The NBI is an investigative agency whose
findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon
its own initiative or as public welfare may require in accordance with its
mandate. It also renders assistance when requested in the investigation or
detection of crimes in order to prosecute the persons responsible.

In this case, since the NBI’s findings were merely recommendatory, the
Court found that no denial of the respondents’ due process right could have taken
place; the NBI’s findings were still subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary
of Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable cause.
Further Info:
The respondents were not likewise denied their right to due process when
the NBI issued the questioned documents report. The Court noted that this report
merely stated that the signatures appearing on the two deeds and in the
petitioner’s submitted sample signatures were not written by one and the same
person. Notably, there was no categorical finding in the questioned documents
report that the respondents falsified the documents. This report, too, was
procured during the conduct of the NBI’s investigation at the petitioner’s request
for assistance in the investigation of the alleged crime of falsification. The report
is inconclusive and does not prevent the respondents from securing a separate
documents examination by handwriting experts based on their own evidence.

On its own, the NBI’s questioned documents report does not directly point
to the respondents’ involvement in the crime charged. Its significance is that,
taken together with the other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties during
the preliminary investigation, these evidence could be sufficient for purposes of
finding probable cause – the action that the Secretary of Justice undertook in the
present case.

In the issue that Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion:

It is well-settled that in order to arrive at a finding of probable cause, the
elements of the crime charged should be present. In determining these elements
for purposes of preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support a prima
facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus,
probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more
than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction
(Villanueva et al. v. Caparas).
Case#15 A.M. No. MTJ-93-783 1996-07-29
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.
JUDGE FILOMENO PASCUAL, respondent.

Facts:
 A certain Ceferino Tigas wrote a letter, addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez
of the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, charging
that irregularities and corruption were being committed by the respondent,
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan.

 The letter was referred to the NBI in order that an investigation on the
alleged illegal and corrupt practices of the respondent may be conducted.
NBI agents proceeded to Angat, Bulacan, in order to look for Ceferino
Tigas, the letter writer.

 Tigas, the NBI team realized was a fictitious character. In view of their
failure to find Tigas, they proceeded to the residence of Candido Cruz, an
accused in respondent’s sala.

 In his affidavit, Cruz declared that he was the accused in Criminal Case
No. 2154, charged with the crime of Frustrated Murder. Respondent judge,
after conducting the preliminary investigation of the case, decided that the
crime he committed was only physical injuries and so, respondent judge
assumed jurisdiction over the case. Cruz believed that he was made to
understand by the respondent that, in view of his favorable action, Cruz
was to give to respondent the sum of P2,000.00. Respondent judge is
believed to be a drunkard and, in all probability, would need money to
serve his vice.

 In view of this statement, the NBI agents assigned to the case caused
respondent judge to be entrapped, for which reason, the judge was thought
to have been caught in flagrante delicto.

 NBI Report: Cruz met with Judge Pascual during latter’s daughter’s
graduation. Cruz told Judge Pascual that he had the money but the latter
did not receive the money because according to him there were plenty of
 people around. He then instructed Cruz to see him at his office the
following day. The following day, Cruz proceeded to the office of Judge
Pascual at the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, and thereat
handed to him four (4) pieces of P500.00 bills contained in a white mailing
envelope previously marked and glazed with fluorescent powder.

 In the meantime, the NBI agents stayed outside the court room and after
about 15 minutes, Cruz came out of the room and signaled that Judge
Pascual had already received the marked money. They immediately
entered the room and informed Subject about the entrapment. Subject
denied having received anything from Cruz, but after a thorough search,
the marked money was found inserted between the pages of a blue book on
top of his table.

 Judge Pascual was invited to the Office of the NBI-NCR, Manila wherein
he was subjected to ultra violet light examination. After finding Subject’s
right hand for the presence of fluorescent powder, he was booked,
photographed and fingerprinted in accordance with NBI’s Standard
Operating Procedure (S.O.P.).

 The results of the investigation was referred to the Inquest Prosecutor of

the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, with the
recommendation that he be charged and prosecuted for Bribery as defined
and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines.

 Judge’s side: The NBI, along with Candido Cruz, proceeded to the
municipal building of Angat, Bulacan, where the accused judge was
holding office. However, they learned that the accused judge was not in his
office but was then attending the graduation rites of his son at the nearby
Colegio de Sta. Monica, and so they decided to move their operation to the
school grounds. The ceremonies had not yet begun. Candido Cruz saw the
accused in one corner of the compound and approached him. He tried to
give the accused an envelope allegedly containing money, but the judge
refused to accept it and angrily drove Candido Cruz away. Rebuffed, the
NBI agents decided to reset their operation the following day.
  The following day, Cruz, as planned, entered the accused judges chambers
and placed an envelope, allegedly containing marked money, right on his
(judges) desk. He thought it was a pleading for filing and he told Candido
Cruz to file it with the office of the clerk of court at the adjacent room. Cruz
replied that it was the money the judge was asking for. Upon hearing the
reply, the accused suddenly erupted in anger, he grabbed the envelope on
the desk and hurled it to Cruz. The envelope fell on the floor, the accused
picked it up and inserted it inside the pocket of Cruzs polo shirt and drove
him out of the chamber.

 NBI agents entered and introduced themselves and told the accused that
the money that Cruz gave him was marked. Accused told them that he did
not receive or accept money from Cruz. But they proceeded to search the
room, the table, its drawers, and every nook and cranny of his room,
including the pockets of the accuseds pants. After scouring the place, the
agents failed to find the envelope with the marked money. And so, one of
the agents called for Candido Cruz who was waiting outside at a waiting
shed fronting the municipal building, and asked him where the envelope
was. Cruz came back to the room and, together with agent Olazo,
approached the cabinet and said heto pala.

 Then, the accused’s humiliating experience began. Thereafter, despite the

strident protestations of the accused, the envelope, which came from the
pocket of Cruz’s polo shirt, was placed on top of the table of the judge,
pictures were taken, and the accused was arrested by the NBI agents.

Procedural History:
 By resolution of the Third Division of Supreme Court, the case was
referred to Executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon for investigation, report
and recommendation.
 the Investigating Judge recommends that appropriate penalty be imposed
upon the respondent.

Issue:
 Whether or not the evidence on record warrants Respondent judge’s
conviction.

Ruling:
No, the evidence on record does not warrant Respondent judge’s
conviction.

In Raquiza vs. Castañeda, Jr., the Court held that the Rules, even in
administrative cases, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined
for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be
competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. The Judiciary to which
respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be
faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of
competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.

In this case, the only bases for the Report and Recommendation consist
of: The Complaint, the Answer, the Memorandum of the respondent, and the
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case of respondent
judge at the Sandiganbayan. The respondent was, therefore, not afforded the
right to open trial wherein respondent can confront the witnesses against him
and present evidence in his defense. Therefore, the above-quoted Report and
Recommendation of the investigating judge had fallen short of the requirements
of due process.

Further information:
The evidence aforesaid admits of irreconcilable inconsistencies in the
testimonies of principal witness, Candido Cruz, and NBI Agent SI Reynaldo
Olazo on several material points.

Even after rigid search of the chambers of respondent, the NBI Agents
failed to find the envelope containing marked money allegedly given by
Candido Cruz to respondent judge.