The Supreme Court held that there was no probable cause to indict Yoshitsugu Matsuura, Carolina Tanjutco, and Julie Cua for falsification of a Deed of Trust. The Court emphasized that prosecutors and the Department of Justice (DOJ) must not misuse the law’s power by filing groundless charges that could infringe on individual liberties. This decision reinforces the necessity of carefully evaluating evidence to prevent unwarranted prosecutions and safeguard the integrity of the legal system.

When a Signature Leads to Suspicion: Challenging Falsification Allegations

This case originated from a complaint filed by Antonio L. Tan, Jr., who accused Yoshitsugu Matsuura, Atty. Carolina Tanjutco, and Atty. Julie Cua of falsifying a Deed of Trust. Tan claimed that his pre-signed Deed of Trust was stolen and later filled with false entries, including the number of shares and the date. He further alleged that Atty. Cua, a notary public, falsely notarized the document, making it appear that Tan had personally appeared before her, which he denied. This dispute highlights the critical question of what constitutes sufficient evidence for establishing probable cause in falsification cases, particularly when a signed document is involved.

The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) initially dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, a decision later reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the Secretary of Justice initially found probable cause, this decision was subsequently reversed, leading to petitions filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ultimately sided with the respondents, prompting Tan to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. This series of conflicting decisions underscores the complex nature of determining probable cause and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding against potential abuses of power.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, courts have the power to review these findings for grave abuse of discretion. Judicial power, as defined in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, includes the authority to assess whether government branches or instrumentalities have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Citing Tan v. Ballena, the Court reiterated that this review power ensures both the prosecution of potential criminals and the protection of innocent individuals from baseless charges. This principle reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining a balance between effective law enforcement and individual rights.

In analyzing the specific allegations against Matsuura and Tanjutco, the Court found that Tan failed to provide sufficient evidence of their participation in the alleged falsification. The key charge against them involved the unauthorized insertions in the Deed of Trust, specifically concerning the number of shares, the date, and the witnesses’ signatures. The elements of falsification under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as outlined in Garcia v. Court of Appeals, include:

1. that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2. that it was made on a genuine document;
3. that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and
4. that the changes made the document speak something false.

For a private individual to be held liable under Article 172 of the RPC, there must also be evidence of damage or intent to cause damage to a third person. Tan’s failure to establish when and how these insertions were made, or that Matsuura and Tanjutco were responsible, proved fatal to his case. His broad claims lacked the specificity needed to demonstrate the respondents’ involvement in the alleged alterations. The court noted that Tan’s claims were insufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity attached to signed documents.

The Court highlighted the presumption that individuals take ordinary care of their affairs, as stated in Section 3(d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. “Hence, the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences,” the Court noted, citing Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals. This presumption further weakened Tan’s claim that the document was incomplete or altered after he signed it. The absence of evidence demonstrating that the alleged insertions changed the document’s meaning or contradicted Tan’s intentions at the time of signing also undermined the falsification charge.

Furthermore, the element of damage, crucial in a falsification charge involving a private document, was not sufficiently established. The OCP correctly observed that Tan’s voluntary act of signing the Deed of Trust indicated that the document spoke for itself and had the effect of a binding contract, regardless of notarization. Without evidence of damage, the charge against Matsuura and Tanjutco for falsification of a private document could not stand.

The Court also addressed the charge against Matsuura and Tanjutco for violating Article 171(2) of the RPC, which pertains to a public officer making it appear that a person participated in an act when they did not. Since neither Matsuura nor Tanjutco was a public officer, they could only be liable if they conspired with Atty. Cua, the notary public. However, the Secretary of Justice initially excluded Atty. Cua from the charge, creating a contradiction. As the CA noted, without Atty. Cua’s involvement as a public officer, Matsuura and Tanjutco could not be held liable under Article 171. This logical inconsistency further demonstrated the lack of probable cause against them.

Turning to the case against Atty. Julie Cua, the Court affirmed the CA’s finding that no probable cause was established to support a falsification case. The Court relied on the presumption of regularity in Atty. Cua’s performance of her duties as a notary public and in the authenticity of the Deed of Trust as a public document. The records from the Notarial Division of the Clerk of Court in Makati City corroborated the existence of a duplicate copy of the Deed of Trust executed by Antonio L. Tan, Jr. on June 19, 1997. Overthrowing these presumptions required more than Tan’s mere denial.

Tan’s denial that he personally appeared before Atty. Cua on the date of notarization was deemed insufficient to establish probable cause. He failed to provide a plausible reason as to why it was impossible for him to be present at the notary public’s office on that date. Additionally, he did not deny that the community tax certificate (CTC) listed in the jurat belonged to him. These factors weakened his claim that he could not have appeared before Atty. Cua.

The Supreme Court concluded that the reasonable probability of the respondents’ participation in the crime of falsification was not sufficiently established during the preliminary investigation. Even Matsuura and Tanjutco’s failure to attach a notarized copy of the deed to their pleading filed with the SEC did not support a finding of probable cause. Instead, it suggested that they believed in the deed’s value even without notarization. Ultimately, the Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that a gross misapprehension of facts constitutes grave abuse of discretion, justifying the setting aside of the Secretary of Justice’s order to file an information against Atty. Cua.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether there was probable cause to indict Yoshitsugu Matsuura, Carolina Tanjutco, and Julie Cua for falsification of a Deed of Trust. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation was sufficient to establish a well-founded belief that a crime had been committed.
What is probable cause?	Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is likely guilty. It requires more than mere suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.
What are the elements of falsification of a document by a private individual?	The elements include that there be an alteration or insertion on a genuine document, that the alteration changed the meaning of the document, and that the changes made the document speak falsely. Additionally, there must be independent evidence of damage or intent to cause damage to a third person.
What is the role of the courts in preliminary investigations?	While the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, courts have the power to review findings of prosecutors and the Department of Justice (DOJ) for grave abuse of discretion. This ensures that the power to prosecute is not misused and that individual rights are protected.
What is the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties?	This legal principle presumes that public officials, including notaries public, perform their duties with honesty and integrity. To overcome this presumption, substantial evidence must be presented to demonstrate that the official acted improperly.
What does grave abuse of discretion mean?	Grave abuse of discretion refers to an act done in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, indicating a lack of reasonable judgment. It can also arise from a gross misapprehension of facts or a violation of the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence.
Why was the element of damage important in this case?	The element of damage is crucial in a falsification case involving a private document because the law requires that the act of falsification caused damage to a third party or was committed with the intent to cause such damage. Without proving damage, the charge of falsification of a private document cannot be sustained.
Can a private individual be held liable for falsification under Article 171 of the RPC?	Article 171 applies to public officers, employees, notaries, or ecclesiastical ministers who falsify a document by taking advantage of their official position. A private individual can only be held liable under this article if they conspired with someone in those categories.
What is the significance of signing a document voluntarily?	When a person voluntarily signs a document, there is a legal presumption that they understood its contents and intended to be bound by it. This presumption places a significant burden on the signer to prove otherwise if they later claim that the document was falsified or that they did not agree to its terms.
What evidence is needed to overcome the presumption of regularity of a notarized document?	To overcome this presumption, more than a bare denial is needed. Adequate supporting evidence should be presented to support the assertions that the document was falsified, or that the notary public acted improperly.

This case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding against potential abuses of power in the determination of probable cause. By carefully scrutinizing the evidence presented and upholding the presumption of regularity, the Supreme Court ensured that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted prosecutions. This decision reinforces the importance of a balanced approach to criminal justice, protecting both individual liberties and the State’s interest in prosecuting legitimate offenses.

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: ANTONIO L. TAN, JR. VS. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA, G.R. NO. 179003, January 09, 2013