View full case

METROPOLITAN BANK v. ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III

FACTS:

The petitioner filed an appeal to nullify and set aside the resolutions issued by the Secretary of Justice directing the City Prosecutor to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 27020. The case originated from Tobias obtaining a loan from METROBANK by offering a property as collateral. However, METROBANK discovered that the certificate of title presented by Tobias was falsified. Despite Tobias' claims of acquiring the property in good faith, the City Prosecutor found probable cause and recommended charging him. The DOJ reversed the resolution and directed the withdrawal of the information. METROBANK challenged this decision, but the CA upheld the DOJ's finding of no probable cause. The CA emphasized Tobias' lack of criminal intent and the discretionary power of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice. The complainant argues that the Minister's refusal is arbitrary and without legal basis.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in affirming the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice and dismissing Metrobank's petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether the presumption of authorship was sufficient to establish probable cause against Tobias.

  3. Whether the Secretary of Justice acted within his authority in reversing the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor

  4. Whether the presumption of forgery could be applied in the case

  5. Whether the Secretary of Justice erred in dismissing the information in the face of the controverting explanation by Tobias showing how he came to possess the spurious document.

  6. Whether the dismissal of the information done by the Secretary of Justice was with abuse of discretion, least of all grave.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals did not commit an error in affirming the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice and dismissing Metrobank's petition for certiorari.

  2. The presumption of authorship was not sufficient to establish probable cause against Tobias.

  3. The appeal has no merit. The courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch. The courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause, unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

  4. The presumption of forgery cannot be applied in this case. The presumption affects the burden of proof and is material during the trial of the criminal case, not during the preliminary investigation.

  5. No, the Secretary of Justice did not err in dismissing the information in the face of the controverting explanation by Tobias showing how he came to possess the spurious document.

  6. No, the dismissal of the information done by the Secretary of Justice was not with abuse of discretion, least of all grave.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of probable cause is an executive function within the discretion of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, and the courts cannot interfere with such determination.

  • The private complainant in a criminal action is only concerned with its civil aspect and can initiate a civil action for damages if the criminal action is not filed.

  • Presumptions in the law can be either conclusive or rebuttable. Rebuttable presumptions can be overcome by other evidence.

  • The courts cannot interfere with the executive determination of probable cause, unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • The presumption of forgery affects the burden of proof and is applicable during the trial of the criminal case, not during the preliminary investigation.

  • The presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

  • A preliminary investigation is designed to secure the respondent involved against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution.

  • In a criminal preliminary investigation, the respondent is legally entitled to explain his side of the accusation.

  • A satisfactory explanation could render ineffective the presumption that one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used it is presumed to be the forger.

  • Banks are expected to exercise greater care and prudence than others in their dealings because their business is impressed with public interest. Their failure to do so constitutes negligence on their part.