The Supreme Court has affirmed the broad discretionary power of the Secretary of Justice in evaluating probable cause, particularly in cases involving estafa (fraud) through falsification of public documents. In Fernando Go v. Court of Appeals, Pilar Lim, and Henry Lim, the Court emphasized that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This ruling reinforces the principle that the determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts should only interfere in cases of manifest error.

When Family Transactions Lead to Fraud Allegations: Examining Probable Cause and Falsification

This case arose from a family dispute over a parcel of land originally owned by Laureana Lu. Her son, Fernando Go, filed complaints for estafa and falsification against his sister, Pilar Lim, and nephew, Henry Lim, alleging that they fraudulently induced him and his siblings to sign documents transferring the land to Henry. The documents in question included a Waiver of Rights, a Last Will and Testament, and a Deed of Absolute Sale. Fernando claimed that these documents were executed through deceit, specifically that the respondents misrepresented that the transfer to Henry was necessary for the land application to be approved.

After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged Pilar and Henry Lim with estafa through falsification of a public document. The DOJ, however, reversed this decision and directed the City Prosecutor to withdraw the information, finding that the documents bore the presumption of genuineness and due execution due to notarization. Furthermore, the DOJ concluded that the crime had prescribed, considering the dates of the documents and the filing of the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Fernando Go’s petition for certiorari, upholding the DOJ’s decision.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the appellate court did not err in dismissing the petition. The Court noted procedural deficiencies in Fernando’s petition, including issues with the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, as well as failure to properly serve copies to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). However, the Court also addressed the substantive issue of probable cause, finding that there was no sufficient basis to hold the respondents liable for estafa through falsification of a public document.

The Supreme Court examined the elements of falsification under Article 171, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, which involves attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them. The Court found that the evidence did not support Fernando’s claim that the respondents attributed false statements to him in the Waiver of Rights. To delve deeper into the specific law that the Court mentioned:

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. – x x x

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

x x x x

The Court highlighted several key points. First, Fernando admitted that Pilar informed him in 1970 that Laureana’s application had already been approved, contradicting his claim that he was induced to sign the Waiver to facilitate the application. Second, the language of the Waiver clearly indicated that Fernando and his siblings were waiving their rights to OCT No. P-136. Third, the Waiver was notarized, carrying a presumption of genuineness and due execution. The notary public and the NBI confirmed its truthfulness and the absence of alterations. For a better understanding, let us check out the timeline of events:

Date	Event
1957	Pilar occupies the property with consent of Laureana and Fernando.
March 18, 1976	Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-136 issued to Laureana.
July 28, 1976	Laureana signs a Waiver of Rights in favor of Henry.
August 6, 1976	Fernando and siblings execute a Waiver of Rights in favor of Henry.
September 14, 1976	Laureana signs a Last Will and Testament bequeathing the property to Henry.
October 4, 1976	Laureana executes a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of Henry.
March 2, 1998	Fernando claims he learned of OCT No. P-136 after being informed of tax arrears.
January 15, 2001	Title to the property transferred to Henry.
November 26, 2002	Fernando files complaint-affidavits for estafa and falsification.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the limited role of courts in reviewing the Secretary of Justice’s determination of probable cause. Citing RCL Feeders PTE., Ltd. v. Perez, the Court reiterated that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice, save only when the same was rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the instant case, we find no such abuse, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Secretary of Justice, as to warrant a reversal of the Court of Appeals’ resolutions.

Therefore, in light of the evidence and the absence of grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, upholding the DOJ’s decision to withdraw the information against Pilar and Henry Lim.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether there was probable cause to charge the respondents with estafa through falsification of a public document.
What is estafa?	Estafa is a crime defined under the Revised Penal Code, involving fraud or deceit that causes damage or prejudice to another person.
What is falsification of a public document?	Falsification of a public document involves altering or misrepresenting information in an official document to cause damage or prejudice.
What is the role of the Secretary of Justice in preliminary investigations?	The Secretary of Justice has the authority to review and reverse the findings of a prosecutor in a preliminary investigation.
What does probable cause mean?	Probable cause refers to a reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed and that the person being accused is probably guilty of the crime.
What is a Waiver of Rights?	A Waiver of Rights is a document where a person voluntarily gives up or relinquishes certain rights or claims.
What is the significance of notarization?	Notarization provides a presumption of regularity and due execution to a document, making it more credible and admissible in court.
What is the role of the Court of Appeals in this case?	The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision of the Department of Justice and the Regional Trial Court, ultimately dismissing the petition for certiorari.
What was the main argument of the petitioner, Fernando Go?	Fernando Go argued that he was induced to sign the Waiver of Rights due to misrepresentations made by the respondents and that the documents were falsified.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the DOJ’s directive to withdraw the information against the respondents.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fernando Go v. Court of Appeals underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the principle of deference to the Secretary of Justice’s determination of probable cause. This case serves as a reminder that allegations of fraud must be supported by substantial evidence and that mere suspicion or conjecture is not sufficient to establish probable cause.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FERNANDO GO VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PILAR LIM AND HENRY LIM, G.R. No. 163745, August 24, 2007