Ligaya P. Cruz vs. Raul M.

Gonzales
G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012

FACTS

Hermosa Savings and Loans Bank, Inc. (HSLBI) availed of forty (40) loans from the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) pursuant to a Subsidiary Loan Agreement. In
support for the loan agreement and applications, HSLBI, through its bank officers and legal
counsel, submitted the required documents.

The Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) conducted an examination of HSLBI’s loan portfolio. The
BSP found out that most of HSLBI’s documents were either forged or inexistent.

Thus, DBP filed a complaint for forty (40) counts of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents of for a large scale fraud or violation of Articles 315, 316(4), and 318 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) against the officers and herein petitioner Atty. Ligaya P. Cruz.

Atty. Cruz was included in the complaint for the reason that she, as in-house legal counsel of
HSLBI, rendered an opinion that the documents submitted by HSLBI to DBP were not forged
and existing.

The officers and Atty. Cruz filed a petition for review. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the
Secretary of Justice for allegedly being devoid of supporting evidence. She argues that she
should not be held liable for the offense since she only signed a pro-forma opinion prepared by
the DBP.

There were conflicting resolutions that were issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and it
was the resolution of Secretary Raul Gonzales which the Court of Appeals (CA) sustained. In
the resolution, it was ruled that there is probable cause to indict the petitioner, Atty. Cruz.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in sustaining the Secretary of Justice in its ruling that there is probable
cause to indict petitioner Atty. Cruz.

RULING:

NO, the CA did not erred in sustaining the ruling of the Secretary of Justice. Jurisprudence has
established rules on the determination of probable cause. Finding probable cause needs only to
rest on evidence showing that more likely that not a crime has been committed and there is
enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A
finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement
of guilt.
In the instant case, the Secretary of Justice found sufficient evidence to indict petitioner. It was
adequately established by the DBP and found by the Secretary of Justice that the purported sub-
borrowers/Investment Enterprises and the collaterals submitted by HSLBI were fictitious and
inexistent. The findings of probable cause against the petitioner was based on the opinion she
issued. In her opinion, she certified that the documents were not fictitious and inexistent. It is
evident therefore that the petitioner’s opinion was instrumental in the deceit committed against
DBP. As a lawyer and in-house legal counsel of HSLBI, it is highly doubtful that she would
have affixed her signature without knowing that there were defects in those documents.

Wherefore, the court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and affirms the decision of the
Court of Appeals.