Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > July 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-61554-55 July 31, 1984 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-61554-55. July 31, 1984.]

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, Petitioner, v. HON. RICARDO C. PUNO, in his capacity as Minister of Justice; and JORGE CENTENERA, TEODORO ALARCON, PABLO PAQUEO, JR., AMELIA LAMIT, ALFREDO SILVA, JOSE CEA, MIGUEL MOLL and OLYMPIO CLAPIS, Respondents.

Benitor P. Favie for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General and Ramon Quisumbing, Jr. for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


The question raised in the petition is whether respondent Minister of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur "to desist from filing in court the corresponding informations against respondents based on your resolution, or to move for their dismissal if they have already been filed, and to thereafter dismiss the twin complaints filed in your office under I.S. Nos. 1162 and 1163, reporting the action you have taken on this directive within ten days from receipt hereof." (p. 35, Rollo)

The facts of this case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Herein petitioner, Tomasa Vda. de Jacob, filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur two (2) criminal complaints for falsification of public documents which purport to have been executed by her deceased husband, Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) A Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 2, 1977 over a parcel of residential land situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Tigaon, Province of Camarines Sur, in favor of Jorge M. Centenera. This deed was ratified on the same date before Notary Public Teodoro Alarcon and had for instrumental witnesses Pablo Paqueo, Jr. and Amelia Lamit. This is the subject of I.S. No. 1162.

"(2) A Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 20, 1976 conveying ownership of 454,987 square meters of agricultural land situated at Barrio Mabalodbalod, Municipality of Tigaon, Province of Camarines Sur to Dr. Daniel Mercado and Dr. Alfredo V. Silva. This deed was ratified on October 25, 1976 before Notary Public Jose Cea and had as instrumental witnesses, Miguel Moll and Olympio Clapis. While this deed is the only one involved in I.S. No. 1163, records show that sometime thereafter, on January 24, 1977, Dr. Jacob appears to have executed another deed of sale covering the same parcel of land to Daniel Mercado only. This deed was ratified on the same date before the same Notary Public, Jose Cea." (pp. 32-33, Rollo)

In charging herein private respondents, namely: Jorge Centenera, Teodoro Alarcon, Pablo Paqueo, Jr., Amelia Lamit, Alfredo Silva, Jose Cea, Miguel Moll and Olympio Clapis, with falsification of public documents, petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob who, since January 16, 1979, had been the court-appointed guardian of the then incompetent Dr. Alfredo Jacob, claims that respondents connived and confederated with each other in falsifying the two deeds of absolute sale aforementioned by making it appear therein that her husband participated in the execution thereof as seller when in truth and in fact he never did so participate in any manner as he was already seriously ill and practically bed ridden on October 20, 1976 and December 2, 1977 when the said documents appeared to have been executed.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After preliminary investigation, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ceferino P. Goce, on May 15, 1979, issued separate resolutions in I.S. Nos. 1162 and 1163 recommending the filing in court of the corresponding informations "for falsification of public documents by private individuals as defined and punished under Article 171, par. 2 in relation to Article 172, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code . . ." (p. 46, Rollo)

The private respondents appealed the aforementioned resolutions to the respondent Minister of Justice, who, on April 15, 1981, directed the Provincial Fiscal to desist from filing in court the corresponding informations against the respondents. Reasons for this directive are —

"While the three medical certificates submitted in evidence tend to indicate that Dr. Alfredo Jacob underwent medical treatment since 1975 for arteriosclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, these could not be considered weighty enough to give credence to the claim that Dr. Jacob could not have been at Camarines Sur on December 2, 1977 to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale involved in I.S. No. 1162. There is no showing that he was no longer ambulatory and mobile while undergoing treatment.

"In this regard, it will be noted that the descriptive portion of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Rodolfo Talag indicating the weak physical condition of the patient and the uncoordinated movements of his legs has reference to the physical condition of Dr. Jacob at the time of examination immediately prior to the issuance of the medical certificate on March 18, 1978. This observation is amply fortified by the suggestion in the medical certificate that the patient undergo immediate hospitalization. It in no way reflects the patient’s state of health on December 2, 1977 when he executed one of the Deeds of Absolute Sale in question.

"Also, there is nothing in the medical certificates issued by three different doctors that would suggest that Dr. Alfredo Jacob could not have been in Camarines Sur on October 20 when he executed the Deed of Absolute Sale subject matter of I.S. No. 1163. The medical certificates do not indicate that he was confined or was under treatment from May 31, 1976 when he was discharged from the hospital after a cardio-vascular clearance to the date when the deed of October 20, 1976 was executed.

"Moreover, the categorical declarations of the instrumental witnesses and Notary Public Teodoro Alarcon who respectively participated in the execution of the deeds in question, to the effect that Dr. Jacob actually and personally executed the Deed of Absolute Sale referred to cannot simply be overcome by the aforementioned medical certificates, most especially in the absence of corroborating evidence tending to show in definite and precise terms that Dr. Jacob was actually not in Camarines Sur on the dates of the execution of the deeds in question. Complainant herself could not qualify to assert this fact considering that on the dates of the execution of the said documents she was not yet married to Dr. Jacob.

"Besides, even without the aforementioned declarations of the instrumental witnesses and notary public, the medical certificates, standing alone, which raise merely assumptions cannot destroy the presumption of regularity in the execution of documents.

"In their totality, we are of the opinion that the evidence on hand cannot sustain a prima facie case of falsification of public documents against respondents in both cases." (pp. 33-34, Rollo)

The first and second motions for reconsideration of the aforementioned order of respondent Minister of Justice were denied. Hence, this appeal by certiorari, petitioner arguing that respondent Minister "has transcended his authority to merely determine the existence of a prima facie case in pursuance of P.D. No. 911 and in so doing arrogated to himself the prerogatives or power vested in the courts." (pp. 28-29, Rollo)

It is apparent from the facts above-stated that certiorari does not lie.

The power of supervision and control by the Minister of Justice over the fiscals cannot be denied. As stated in Noblejas v. Salas, 67 SCRA 47, "Section 79 (c) of the Revised Administrative Code defines the extent of a department secretary’s power. The power of control therein contemplated ‘means (the power of the department head) to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.’ ‘The power of control .. implies the right of the President (and, naturally, of his alter ego) to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers.’ For, while it is the duty of the fiscal to prosecute persons who, according to evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime, the Minister of Justice is likewise bound by his oath of office to protect innocent persons from groundless false or serious prosecution. He would be committing a serious dereliction of duty if he orders or sanctions the filing of an information based upon a complaint where he is not convinced that the evidence would warrant the filing of the action in court. As he has the power of supervision and control over prosecuting officers, the Minister of Justice has the ultimate power to decide which as between conflicting theories of the complainant and the respondents should be believed. "It should be realized that when a man is haled to court on a criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his family as well. Therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of prima facie case before filing the information in Court. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty (Bernardo v. Mendoza, 90 SCRA 214)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The remedy of complainant in a case where the Minister of Justice would not allow the filing of a criminal complaint against an accused because it is his opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain an information for the complaint with which the respondents are charged of, is to file a civil action as indicated in Article 35 of the Civil Code, which provides:chanrobles law library

"ARTICLE 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

"If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

Further, Presidential Decree No. 911 specifically provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Provided, Finally, That where the resolution of the Provincial or City Fiscal or the Chief State Prosecutor is, upon review, reversed by the Secretary (now Minister) of Justice, the latter may, where he finds that no prima facie case exists, authorize and direct the investigating fiscal concerned or any other fiscal or state prosecutor to cause or move for the dismissal of the case, or, where he finds a prima facie case, to cause the filing of an information in court against the respondent, based on the same sworn statement or evidence submitted, without the necessity of conducting another preliminary investigation."cralaw virtua1aw library

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., took no part.

Teehankee, J., I reserve my vote.

Makasiar, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





July-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39914 July 2, 1984 - AMADO S. CENIZA v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. L-29181 July 9, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES CANUMAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54414 July 9, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO M. LORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30256 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ONAROSA

  • G.R. No. L-35529 July 16, 1984 - NORA CANSING SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36585 July 16, 1984 - MARIANO DIOLOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39338 July 16, 1984 - DOUGLAS B. ALVIR v. RIZALINA B. VERA

  • G.R. No. L-40351 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME B. ACILAR

  • G.R. No. L-43003 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO V. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. L-43890 July 16, 1984 - OCEANIC BIC DIVISION (FFW), ET AL. v. FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-47986 & L-49018 July 16, 1984 - AQUILINA P. MARIN v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. Nos. L-48376-85 & L-63387 July 16, 1984 - BALAGTAS REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49644-45 July 16, 1984 - MARIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58958 July 16, 1984 - GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORPORATION v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-62281-82 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO R. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62449 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL H. SESBRENO

  • G.R. No. L-65786 July 16, 1984 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES LOCAL EMP. ASSO., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62626 July 18, 1984 - CAYETANO TIONGSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52804 July 20, 1984 - ELENA O. ESCUTIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54449 July 20, 1984 - EUGENIO CABRAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64296 July 20, 1984 - NATIONAL SERVICE CORP. v. DEPUTY MINISTER VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-22960 July 25, 1984 - IPO LIMESTONE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32202-04 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONTING BIRUAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32957-8 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON PACIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33294 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL V. SERNA

  • G.R. No. L-33544 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MOZAR

  • G.R. Nos. L-34106-08 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO C. MAALIHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34247 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO P. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-35103 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATROCINIO DOFILEZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-35123-24 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY TIONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-37482 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS R. MATERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38818 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MONTALBO

  • G.R. No. L-52208 July 25, 1984 - JULIA DAYRIT HIDALGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59431 July 25, 1984 - ANTERO M. SISON, JR. v. RUBEN B. ANCHETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61969 July 25, 1984 - AGUSTINA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. LUCIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30483 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31753 July 31, 1984 - JOSE V. BONAFE v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32849 July 31, 1984 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37420 July 31, 1984 - MACARIA A. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38891 July 31, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMINIA SIOCHI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40462 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-45480 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPO CAMPESINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52051 July 31, 1984 - NAPOLEON A. TADURAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53590 July 31, 1984 - ROSARIO BROTHERS INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54881 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO QUIBATE

  • G.R. No. L-55087 July 31, 1984 - FELIX TERO, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO TERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55533 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58100 July 31, 1984 - PRISCILO SY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58303 July 31, 1984 - ESTRELLA A. VDA. DE SILENCIO, ET AL. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59830 July 31, 1984 - JUAN BAUTISTA v. CITY FISCAL OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61462 July 31, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61554-55 July 31, 1984 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984 - ILUMINADA VER BUISER, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-63326 July 31, 1984 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63930 July 31, 1984 - ROMULO C. FELIZMEÑA v. RICARDO D. GALANO

  • G.R. No. L-64167 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN LOREDO

  • G.R. No. L-65952 July 31, 1984 - LAURO G. SORIANO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67966 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO NAVOA, ET AL.