Borlongan v.

Pena
G.R. No. 143591- November 23, 2007
Nachura, J.

Topic: Preliminary Investigation

Doctrine/s: On Preliminary Investigation: Fiscal may determine probable cause without any counter-affidavits
filed by the accused in a complaint; On Probable Cause: While probable cause should be determined in a
summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential
accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play

Petitioner: Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo E. Manuel, Jr., Eric L. Lee, P. Siervo H.
Dizon, Benjamin De Leon, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Ben Yu Lim, Jr.
Respondent: Magdaleno M. Peña, Hon. Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr (Judge, Mtc Bago City)

Case Summary: Petitioners were charged with Introducing Falsified Documents (RPC172) when they
presented alleged falsified documents for a separate civil action filed by the respondent. Subsequently, the
MTCC issued a Warrant of Arrest (WoA) for their arrest. Both MTCC and CA denied the petitioners’ Motion
to Dismiss the case (petitioners alleged that they were not afforded due process since they were not asked to
submit a counter afffidavit [alleged violation of the Rules on Preliminary Investigation] + there was no
probable cause in the filing of the criminal case and issuance of WoA). Supreme Court here first ruled that
there was actually no rule that says counter-affidavits should be submitted if the complaint was filed with
the fiscal. Added to this, personal determination on the existence of probable cause was needed from the
judge, and not personal examination of witnesses and complainants, Thus, the lower courts did not commit
GADALEJ in the procedural aspect of the case. However, although the procedure was followed, the Supreme
Court held that there was no probable cause to file the information based on the evidence gathered by the
fiscal. MOTION TO DISMISS IS THUS GRANTED.

Facts:
Crime Charged Introducing Falsified Documents in a Judicial Proceeding(RPC172). Elements:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or
2 of Article 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.
Accused Petitioners (Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo E. Manuel, Jr.,
Eric L. Lee, P. Siervo H. Dizon, Benjamin De Leon, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Ben Yu
Lim, Jr.)
Complainant Respondent (Magdaleno M. Pena)
Where First Filed MTCC Bago City; Judge Primitivo Blanca

Pre-Court Events:
 Magdaleno Pena (Respondent) initially filed a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation against
Urban Bank and the petitioners, allegedly for work done to prevent intruders from unlawfully occupying
Urban Bank’s property in Pasay City.
 Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that they never appointed Pena as agent. Attached to the
motion were four (4) documents1 attempting to show that Pena was actually appointed as agent by ISCI
and not by Urban Bank.

1
1) A letter signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject
property; 2) an unsigned letter addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong; 3) a letter addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed
by Marilyn G. Ong; and 4) a Memorandum from Enrique Montilla III
  Subsequently, Pena filed his counter-affidavit claiming that said documents were falsified [Signatories
did not affix their signatures + they’re not officers of ISCI]. Worse, petitioners introduced said
documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

Trial court (MTCC Bago City):

 [THE IMPORTANT CASE HERE] The City Prosecutor then concluded that the petitioners were
probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents [RPC172(2)]. The
corresponding Informations were filed with the MTCC Bago City. Thereafter, Judge Blanca issued the
warrants for the arrest of the petitioners.
 Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or Reinvestigation. They insisted that
they were denied due process because of the non-observance of the proper procedure on preliminary
investigation, specifically their right to submit their counter-affidavit. They also prayed that the
information be quashed for lack of probable cause, and that the criminal case be suspended.
 MTCC denied the omnibus motion primarily on the ground that preliminary investigation was not
available in the instant case — which fell within the jurisdiction of the MTCC. Court added that the
petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail.

Court of Appeals: [NOTE: No mention of RTC here. They went straight to the CA]
 Petitioners instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and TRO before the CA ascribing GADALEJ on the part of MTCC in issuing
and not recalling the warrants of arrest, reiterating the arguments in their omnibus motion
 CA dismissed the petition.

Supreme Court: Instant petition for review on Certiorari was instituted under Rule 45. Court issued a TRO
enjoing the judge of the MTCC from proceeding with the criminal cases while the instant case is pending with
the SC.
 [NOT THAT IMPORTANT ISSUE] The SC here first ruled that the petitioner’s posting of bail (which
were found to have been made to avoid embarassment since they were then officers of Urban Bank) did
not constitute the waiver of their right to question the validity of their arrest. [ROC114, Section 26:
Bail not bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of irregular preliminary investigation]

Substantive Issues + Held:

1. W/N petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law because of the denial of their right to
preliminary investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit [NO]
 Petitioner’s arguments: (1) they were denied due process because they were not afforded the right to
submit counter-affidavits; (2) the respondent's complaint-affidavit was not based on the latter's personal
knowledge; (3) it was not established that the documents in question were falsified
 On non-submission of a counter-affidavit: The penalty for the crime is Arresto Mayor (4 months,
1day up to 2 years, 4 months), thus Jurisdiction falls with the MTCC not the RTC. ROC112, Section
9(a) allows for filing of complaints with the fiscal, and in turn, the fiscal “shall take appropriate action
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant.”
o No mention in the rules was done that mandates the fiscal to require the submission of counter-
affidavits. The fiscal may work with the documents submitted by the complainant to determine
probable cause.
o If there is probable cause, he may file the Information. If not, he can simply dismiss the case.
 On the requirement of the judge’s personal determination on the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant: The constitutional provision does not mean personal examination of the
complainant and his witness. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
o (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor
regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a
personal determination of the existence of probable cause;
 o (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor's report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause
 In light of the foregoing, to reiterate, preliminary investigation was not mandatory, and the submission
of counter-affidavit was not necessary.

2. W/N there was probable cause for the filing of the Informations and the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest
[NO]
 The SC generally respects the discretion created to the prosecutor regarding the determination of
probable cause, but the facts obtaining in the present case warrant the application of the exception, SC
will determine if probable cause is present.
 Probable Cause for the issuance of a WoA is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances
that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sought to be arrested.
 The SC said that the Pena (respondent) failed to sufficiently establish prima facie evidence that the
alleged documents were falsified, ultimately failing to support the existence of probable cause.
o Pena’s allegations (no affixed signatures + signatories were not actually officers + falsified
signatures) were mere assertions insufficient to wrrant the filing of the complaint or the
issuance of the WoA. At the very least, the affidavit was based on respondent's personal belief
and not personal knowledge.
o On the falsification: Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent state that he was present at the
time of the execution of the documents. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with the
signatures of the signatories.
o On not being officers: Respondent presented minutes of the meeting and list of stockholders
(where petitioner’s names were not found), but this does not mean that the documents were
falsified. The mere fact that they were not o􏰁cers or stockholders of ISCI does not necessarily
mean that their signatures were falsified.
 While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the
evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty.
Although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify
conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated June 20, 2000,
in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order dated August
2, 2000 is hereby made permanent. Accordingly, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, City of Bago, is
ORDERED to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 6683-86.