Torres v. Aguinaldo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent-spouses Edgardo and Nelia Aguinaldo filed a complaint for falsification of public document against petitioner Artemio T. Torres, Jr. (Torres). They alleged that titles to their properties were transferred to Torres through a forged Deed of Sale dated July 21, 1979, without their knowledge and consent. Torres denied forgery, claiming the properties were sold to him via a March 10, 1991 Deed of Absolute Sale. Procedural History: The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila found probable cause and filed an information for falsification of public document before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. Torres' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Secretary of Justice reversed the OCP's finding and ordered the withdrawal of the information. The MTC granted the motion to withdraw the information, and Torres had not yet been arraigned. The respondent-spouses filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the Secretary of Justice's resolution and reinstated the OCP's finding of probable cause. The Petition: Torres filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the MTC granting the motion to withdraw the information rendered moot the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals. Whether the respondent-spouses committed forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in reversing the investigating prosecutor's findings on the existence of probable cause.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 22, 2004 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The resolution of the Secretary of Justice dated November 12, 2002 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness and provisional dismissal: The Court held that a motion to withdraw an information differs from a motion to dismiss in its legal effect. While both end an action, the withdrawal of an information is without prejudice to re-filing upon reinvestigation, whereas a dismissal is with prejudice. Therefore, the ruling in Bañares II v. Balising, which dealt with a motion to dismiss and the time-bar rule on provisional dismissal, was not applicable. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if it were treated as a motion to dismiss, it did not comply with the requisites of Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically the express consent of the accused, as the motion was filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor without Torres' conformity. Thus, the MTC's order granting the withdrawal did not render the CA petition moot. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court ruled that the respondent-spouses were not guilty of forum shopping. The cases they filed against the petitioner were based on distinct causes of action. Moreover, a certificate of non-forum shopping is required only in civil complaints under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not in criminal cases or cases with distinct causes of action, as held in People v. Ferrer. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice: The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Secretary of Justice's resolution. The CA based its findings solely on the affidavit-complaint and NBI report, disregarding the counter-affidavit and documentary evidence of the petitioner. The Court emphasized that Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the submission of the respondent's counter-affidavit and supporting documents. Therefore, in determining probable cause, the investigating officer must examine both the complainant's evidence and the controverting evidence presented by the defense. The determination must be based on the totality of evidence presented by both parties. The Secretary of Justice did not abuse his discretion because his findings were grounded on a sound statutory and factual basis. The Court found no direct and personal participation by the petitioner in the alleged forged deed, and his possession of a valid 1991 Deed of Sale, along with other circumstances, cast doubt on the allegations of falsification. The Court reiterated that the power of control of the Secretary of Justice over his subordinates includes the power to alter, modify, or nullify what a subordinate officer has done, and to substitute his judgment for that of the subordinate, as he is bound to protect innocent persons from groundless prosecution.
Main Doctrine
A motion to withdraw information, unlike a motion to dismiss, is not time-barred and does not fall within the ambit of the law on provisional dismissal. The Secretary of Justice, in reviewing a prosecutor's finding on probable cause, must consider the totality of evidence presented by both parties, including the controverting evidence of the defense, and his resolution is persuasive but not binding on the courts. Grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice or the trial court may be a ground for certiorari.