Probable Cause in Estafa Through Falsification: DOJ Discretion Upheld in Go v. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court, in Fernando Go v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 163745, August 24, 2007), affirmed the dismissal of a petition challenging the Department of Justice's (DOJ) directive to withdraw an information for estafa through falsification of public document. The case underscores two important principles: courts will not interfere with the Secretary of Justice's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause absent grave abuse, and strict compliance with procedural rules in petitions for certiorari is required.

The Facts of the Case

Petitioner Fernando Go filed complaints for estafa and falsification against his sister Pilar Lim and nephew Henry Lim. Go alleged that his mother, Laureana Lu, owned a parcel of land in Cotabato City covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-136. He claimed that respondents deceived him and his siblings into signing waivers and other documents by representing that the land could only be titled in Henry's name. Go asserted he only learned of the title's issuance in 1998.

Respondents countered that Go was fully aware of the transactions, having witnessed the execution of the notarized Waiver of Rights. They presented the notary public's affidavit affirming the documents' due execution and Laureana's sound mental condition at the time.

The DOJ's Resolution

After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor filed charges against respondents. However, upon respondents' appeal, the DOJ ordered the withdrawal of the information. The DOJ found that the notarized documents carried the presumption of genuineness and due execution, confirmed by the notary public and the National Bureau of Investigation. The DOJ also ruled that the crime had prescribed, noting the documents were executed in 1976 while the complaint was filed only in 2002.

The Court of Appeals' Dismissal

The Court of Appeals dismissed Go's petition for certiorari on technical grounds: the attached resolutions were mere photocopies, the verification failed to comply with the amended rules, and no copy of the petition was served on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Go's petition. On the procedural issues, the Court held that verification must state that allegations are true and correct based on personal knowledge or authentic records—not mere belief. The Court noted that counsel's unawareness of the rules, amended since May 1, 2000, did not excuse non-compliance.

On service, the Court clarified that in petitions filed with the Court of Appeals, service must be made on the adverse party, and since the OSG represents the Republic in appellate proceedings, service on that office was required.

The Merits: No Probable Cause for Estafa Through Falsification

Addressing the substantive issue, the Court found no probable cause. The records showed Go knew the application had been approved in 1970, six years before he signed the Waiver. As the Court observed, what Go and his siblings intended to waive were their rights to the title itself. The notarized Waiver carried the presumption of genuineness, and no evidence showed respondents attributed statements to Go other than those he actually made.

Practical Takeaways

• Prosecutorial discretion is respected. Courts will not substitute their judgment for the Secretary of Justice's findings on probable cause unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Notarized documents enjoy evidentiary weight. A notarized document carries the presumption of regularity and due execution, which can be decisive in preliminary investigations.
• Technical rules matter in appellate practice. Verification must be based on personal knowledge or authentic records, not mere belief, and certified true copies of assailed orders must be attached to petitions.
• Prescription can defeat criminal charges. Delays in filing complaints, especially when the complainant participated in the underlying transactions, may result in the dismissal of charges on prescription grounds.
• Service on the OSG is required. In petitions before the Court of Appeals involving the government, failure to serve the Solicitor General may be fatal to the petition.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.