Go v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fernando Go filed complaint-affidavits for estafa through falsification of public document against his sister Pilar Lim and nephew Henry Lim. Petitioner alleged that respondents manipulated his mother, Laureana Lu, into signing documents, including a Waiver of Rights and a Deed of Absolute Sale, in favor of Henry Lim, thereby defrauding Fernando Go. These documents pertained to a parcel of land in Cotabato City for which OCT No. P-136 was issued to Laureana Lu. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed an information for estafa through falsification of public document against respondents. The trial court found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest. Respondents appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing prescription and lack of probable cause. The DOJ ordered the City Prosecutor to withdraw the information, citing the presumption of genuineness of notarized documents, the NBI's confirmation of no alterations, and the prescription of the crime. The trial court allowed the withdrawal. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on technical grounds (lack of certified true copies, defective verification, and failure to serve on the OSG). Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition on technical grounds and in disregarding jurisprudence and evidence on the merits. He argued that the Court of Appeals illegally amended the Rules of Court and that the findings of the Prosecutor and DOJ were contradictory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on technical grounds. Whether there is probable cause to hold respondents liable for estafa through falsification of public document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the Rules of Court regarding the submission of certified true copies and proper service of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General. On the merits, the Court found no probable cause for estafa through falsification of public document, agreeing with the DOJ that the evidence did not prima facie establish the crime and that the crime had prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal on technical grounds: The Supreme Court found the petitioner's submissions untenable. The Court reiterated that a verification must be based on personal knowledge or authentic records, and mere belief is insufficient. Petitioner's counsel's admission of ignorance of amended rules bound the client. Furthermore, the Rules of Court clearly require service of the petition on the adverse party, and since the OSG represents the Republic in appellate proceedings, service on the OSG was mandatory. The failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed resolutions and order was also a fatal flaw, as this requirement is necessary for the appellate court to properly review the case and cannot be ignored due to mere inadvertence. On the existence of probable cause: The Supreme Court agreed with the DOJ that no probable cause existed for estafa through falsification of public document. The Court noted that the Waiver of Rights, dated August 6, 1976, was notarized and carried the presumption of genuineness and due execution, further corroborated by the notary public and the NBI. Petitioner's claim that he was induced to sign the waiver because Laureana's application could not be approved was contradicted by his own admission that Laureana's application had already been approved in 1970. Therefore, when he and his siblings signed the waiver in 1976, they were aware that they were waiving their rights to the title, not facilitating an application. The Court found no evidence that respondents attributed to petitioner statements other than those he actually made in the Waiver, thus failing to establish a prima facie case for estafa through falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court also upheld the DOJ's finding that the crime had prescribed, as the waivers and title were executed in 1976, and the complaint-affidavits were filed in 2002, beyond the twenty-year prescriptive period for crimes punishable by reclusion temporal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition on technical grounds, holding that the petitioner failed to comply with the Rules of Court regarding the submission of certified true copies and proper service. On the merits, the Court found no probable cause for estafa through falsification of public document, as the evidence did not prima facie show that the respondents attributed to the petitioner statements other than those in fact made by him in the notarized Waiver of Rights, and that the crime had prescribed.