FACTS:

The case involves two consolidated petitions for review filed by petitioner Antonio L. Tan, Jr. The first petition challenges the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a case involving Yoshitsugu Matsuura and Carolina Tanjutco. The second petition challenges the CA's decision and resolution in a case involving Julie O. Cua.

Tan filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Makati City, charging Matsuura, Tanjutco, and Cua with the crime of falsification. Tan alleged that a deed of trust had been falsified, with entries inserted without his participation or consent. Tan also claimed that the said deed had been notarized by Cua without his appearance, signature, or oath.

Matsuura denied the charges and argued that Tan's complaint was a scheme following their dispute in a different case. Tanjutco argued that Tan's admission of pre-signing the deed proved his willingness to assign his shares. Cua explained that Tan had presented himself as Antonio Tan, Jr. and requested the notarization of the deed.

The OCP dismissed the complaint against Matsuura and Tanjutco, considering the voluntary signing of the deed and the absence of sufficient proof of damage. The complaint against Cua was also dismissed, as Tan failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the notary public's performance.

The case involves two petitions for review filed by Tan, challenging the CA's decision in the petition filed by Matsuura, Tanjutco, and Cua. The main issues before the Supreme Court are whether the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petitions and whether the CA erred in upholding the finding of the OCP that there was no probable cause to indict Matsuura, Tanjutco, and Cua for the crime of falsification.

Tan's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition in G.R. No. 195816 is still pending. Tan argues that the CA erred in granting Cua's motion for an extension of time to file her petition.

The Court emphasizes that rules of procedure should facilitate justice and that technicalities that frustrate substantial justice should be avoided. Thus, the CA's ruling on Cua's motion for extension of time is sustained in the interest of substantial justice.

On the first main issue, Tan argues that the CA should not have taken cognizance of the petitions because criminal proceedings should not be restrained once probable cause has been determined and the corresponding information has been filed in court. However, the Court recognizes the power of courts to review findings of prosecutors in preliminary investigations under exceptional cases showing grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the main issues in this case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) should have taken cognizance of the petitions for certiorari filed before it despite the determination of probable cause and the filing of the corresponding information in court.

2. Whether courts possess the power to review findings of prosecutors in preliminary investigations.

3. Whether all the elements of falsification of a private document were adequately established during the preliminary investigation.

4. Whether there is sufficient evidence to show the specific acts attributed to the respondents in the alleged alteration or intercalation of the document.

5. Whether the differences in print, font style, and size of certain entries in the document are sufficient to establish falsification.

6. Whether the petitioner voluntarily executed the Deed of Trust with the intention of giving effect thereto.

7. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the element of damage purportedly suffered by Tan by reason of the alleged falsification.

8. Whether the Secretary of Justice's finding of probable cause against Matsuura and Tanjutco was based on legal and factual bases.

9. Whether the Secretary of Justice's directive upon the prosecutor to file the second information against Matsuura and Tanjutco lacked basis.

10. Whether or not the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions against Matsuura and Tanjutco.

11. Whether or not probable cause was established to support a falsification case against Cua.

12. Whether or not the respondents' alleged participation in the commission of the crime of falsification was sufficiently established during the preliminary investigation.

RULING:

1. The CA may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari filed despite the determination of probable cause and the filing of the information in court in exceptional cases showing grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the CA's exercise of its power to review was proper considering the varying findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Secretary of Justice, even contrary to the findings of the Office of the City Prosecutor that conducted the preliminary investigation. The review was necessary to determine if grave abuse of discretion attended the discharge of the Secretary's functions.

2. Courts retain the power to review findings of prosecutors in preliminary investigations in exceptional cases showing grave abuse of discretion. While the determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function lodged with the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, the courts, as organs of the judiciary, have the mandate under the Constitution, relevant statutes, and remedial rules to settle cases and controversies. This ensures that probable criminals are prosecuted and the innocent are spared from baseless prosecution.

3. The Court held that the petitioner failed to adequately establish all the elements of falsification of a private document during the preliminary investigation.

4. The Court ruled that there were no sufficient allegations and evidence presented to show the specific acts attributed to the respondents in the alleged alteration or intercalation of the document.

5. The Court found that the differences in print, font style, and size of certain entries in the document are not sufficient to establish falsification.

6. The Court found that the petitioner voluntarily executed the Deed of Trust with the intention of giving effect to it. The alleged insertions in the document did not change its meaning or differ from the petitioner's intended meaning at the time that he signed it. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of lack of consent or authority for the alleged change was not sufficient to establish a violation of Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

7. There was insufficient evidence to support the element of damage claimed by Tan from the alleged falsification. The act of voluntarily signing the Deed of Trust in favor of Matsuura implies that the document speaks for itself and has the effect of a binding contract between the parties. The element of damage was not sufficiently shown.

8. The Court held that the Secretary of Justice's finding of probable cause against Matsuura and Tanjutco was based solely on surmises and conjectures, which were unsupported by legal and factual bases. Thus, the Court upheld the nullification of the resolutions assailed before it on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

9. The Secretary of Justice's directive to include Cua in the information was found to be a grave abuse of discretion. Article 171 of the RPC refers to falsification committed by a public officer, employee, notary, or ecclesiastical minister. Since Matsuura and Tanjutco are private individuals, they can only be indicted for the offense if it is shown that they conspired with a public officer, employee, notary, or ecclesiastical minister in the commission thereof. Since Cua was excluded from the charge, Matsuura and Tanjutco cannot be held liable for the offense.

10. The Court affirms the earlier denial of the petition in G.R. No. 195816, given Tan's failure to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA correctly held that no probable cause was established to support a falsification case against Cua.

11. The Court adheres to the presumption of regularity in Cua's performance of her official duty and the presumption of regularity attached to the deed of trust as a public document. Tan's bare denial and failure to provide adequate supporting evidence to overthrow these presumptions held no weight in the determination of probable cause. Therefore, the Secretary of Justice's order to pursue the case against Cua amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.

12. The reasonable probability of the respondents' participation in the commission of the crime of falsification was not sufficiently established during the preliminary investigation. The failure to attach a notarized copy of the deed to the pleading filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) weakens the argument of alleged falsification and wrongful notarization. The unnotarized copy of the deed submitted to the SEC showed the respondents' belief in its value to their case. Thus, the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion by gross misapprehension of facts in ordering the filing of the information against Cua.

PRINCIPLES:

• The exercise of the courts' review power ensures that the innocent are protected from baseless prosecution, and that probable criminals are prosecuted.

• Courts may set aside the prosecutor's or the Department of Justice's conclusions in exceptional cases to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration of justice.

• Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, requires facts that engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

• Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.

• While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to carefully examine the evidence to protect the constitutional rights of the accused and to prevent unnecessary expenses in prosecuting false, fraudulent, or groundless charges.

• In a preliminary investigation, the elements of the crime and the particular participation of each of the respondents in its commission must be shown to establish probable cause.

• Allegations and evidence must be presented to establish the specific acts attributed to the respondents in the alleged alteration or intercalation of a document.

• Differences in print, font style, and size of certain entries in a document do not necessarily indicate falsification, as it is common practice for parties to prepare and print instruments with specific details that are yet to be filled up upon execution. The presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns and is aware of the contents and consequences of the document before signing it.

• A violation of Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the RPC requires that the alteration or intercalation changes the meaning of the document.

• The element of damage is crucial in a charge of falsification of a private document and must be sufficiently shown.

• A finding of probable cause requires more than mere suspicion, but it does not require evidence that would justify conviction. It should be determined in a summary manner, but with care to protect the accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to avoid unnecessary expenses in prosecuting false, fraudulent, or groundless charges.

• A grave abuse of discretion occurs when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence, or when it is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal bias.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

• The presumption of regularity attached to public documents.

• Grave abuse of discretion refers not only to palpable errors of jurisdiction but also to cases of gross misapprehension of facts.

• Failure to provide plausible explanations or adequate supporting evidence can weaken assertions and claims.