Sales v. Adapon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Aurora A. Sales, a US immigrant, filed a complaint for nullification of various certificates of title and recovery of properties against her siblings, including Benjamin D. Adapon, Ofelia C. Adapon, and Teofilo D. Adapon, alleging that the subject property was subdivided and registered in their names without her knowledge and consent. The respondents attached a Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement Among Heirs, purportedly executed on November 5, 1990, by all eleven siblings. Aurora Sales executed an affidavit in New York, USA, claiming the deed was falsified as she did not sign it and was in the US on the date of its supposed execution. She authorized her son-in-law, Jerico B. Sales, to pursue criminal proceedings. Procedural History: The initial complaint was recommended for dismissal but reopened upon Aurora's submission of her affidavit sworn before a Philippine Vice-Consul. The Provincial Prosecutor then dismissed the complaint, citing Aurora's non-appearance at a clarificatory hearing. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this dismissal, ordering the filing of an information for use of falsified document under Article 172, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, finding sufficient evidence for probable cause. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the respondents' petition for certiorari, annulling the DOJ resolution and reinstating the dismissal, citing grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ and the investigating prosecutor's failure to personally examine the complainant. The Petition: Aurora A. Sales appealed the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint due to her failure to appear at the clarificatory hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint because of the petitioner's failure to appear at the clarificatory hearing set by the investigating prosecutor. Whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the dismissal of the criminal complaint for falsification.
Ruling
The Court grants the petition for review on certiorari, reverses and sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstates the resolution of the Department of Justice directing the Provincial Prosecutor of Batangas to file the corresponding information for use of falsified document under Article 172, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code against respondents Benjamin, Teofilo, and Ofelia, all surnamed Adapon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the CA erring in ordering the dismissal due to the petitioner's failure to appear at the clarificatory hearing: The Court held that the dismissal was erroneous. Preliminary investigation is a crucial step to determine probable cause, not a trial. The complainant's personal presence at a clarificatory hearing is not always indispensable, especially when she is residing abroad and has authorized an agent to represent her. The investigating prosecutor's failure to specify the matters needing clarification further weakened the basis for dismissal. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor's duty is to do justice and less to prosecute, and that a finding of probable cause requires only evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and by the suspects, not sufficient evidence for conviction. The Court also noted that the complainant's advanced age and residence abroad were excusable reasons for her absence, and her deposition could have been taken if her presence was deemed absolutely necessary. On the issue of the DOJ committing grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the CA erred in concluding that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA's restrictive reading of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which requires the investigating prosecutor to certify that he personally examined the complainant and witnesses, was misplaced. The term 'complainant' in this context does not necessitate the personal appearance of the victim if sufficient evidence, such as sworn declarations and affidavits from authorized representatives, already establishes probable cause. The offense of falsification is a public offense, and the State is the real party in interest. The DOJ correctly found that the evidence presented, including the complainant's denial of her signature and the circumstances surrounding the deed's execution, established a prima facie case for falsification and use of a falsified document. The respondents' claim of good faith reliance on Victoria Adapon Sales-Santiago's authority was insufficient to overcome this prima facie case, especially without her corroboration or a special power of attorney.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal complaint for falsification solely on the ground of the complainant's non-appearance at a clarificatory hearing is erroneous if sufficient evidence already exists to establish probable cause, especially when the complainant is abroad and represented by an authorized agent, and the investigating prosecutor failed to specify the matters needing clarification.