Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTBaguio CitySECOND
DIVISIONG.R. No. 182573 April 23, 2014RAY SHU, Petitioner, vsJAME
!EE, ENR"UETO MAGPANTAY, RAMON MRAN!A, #ARRY MAC##AN, AN!
E!$NSO,Respon!ents! E CSO N%RON, J.:"e resolve the Rule #$
petit%&n for revie' on certiorari file! by petitioner Ray Shu
(petitioner) see*ing thereversal of the !ecision% of the Court of
+ppeals (C+) !ate! ,une %-, .&&/ an! its resolution !ate!
+pril #,.&&0 1heseassaile!C+ rulingsannulle!theresolutionof
theSecretaryof ,usticefin!ingprobablecause for falsification
against the respon!entsTHE &ACTUA# ANTECE!ENTS1he petitioner is
the Presi!ent of the 2+ +pparel Corporation 3e file! a co4plaint
before the NationalBureauof Investigation(NB5)
chargingtherespon!entsof falsificationof t'o!ee!sof real
estate4ortgage sub4itte! to the 6etropolitan Ban* an! 1rust Co4pany
(+#etroban*) Both !ee!s of real estate4ortgage 'ere allege!ly
signe! by the petitioner, one in his o'n na4e 'hile the other 'as
on behalf of2+ +pparel Corporation+ccor!ing to the petitioner, the
respon!ents 'ere e4ployees of 6etroban* Respon!ents ,ai4e 1
Deean!E!'inSosigne!thet'o!ee!sof real estate4ortgageas'itnesses7
respon!entsRa4onS6iran!a an! Enri8ueto I 6agpantay notari9e! the
!ee!s of real estate 4ortgage signe! by the petitionerin his o'n
behalf an! for the corporation, respectively 1he signature of
respon!ent :arry 6acillan, on theother han!, appeare!inthe!ee!sof
real estate4ortgage'hichhesub4itte!totheOfficeof theRegistrar of
Dee!s for San ,uan, 6etro 6anila. Base! on these !ee!s, 6etroban*
foreclose! the t'oproperties securing the 2+ +pparel Corporation;s
loan2+fter investigation, the NBI file! a co4plaint 'ith the City
Prosecutor of 6a*ati (city prosecutor) chargingtherespon!entsof
thecri4eof forgeryan! falsificationof public!ocu4ents1heNBI
supporte! theco4plaint 'ith the %&-0 (8uestione! !ocu4ents
report) issue! byits notaries public 6agpantay an!6iran!a, 'ithout
infor4ingthesenotariesthat thepassport ha!alrea!ybeencancelle!
1hisfin!ingpresu4e! the regularity of the perfor4ance of !uty of a
notary public-1he petitioner appeale! the city prosecutor;
resolution to the Secretary of ,ustice%&T'( R)li*+ o, -'(
S(0r(-1r. o, J)/-i0(1he Secretary of ,ustice reverse! the city
prosecutor;s fin!ings She rule! that the city prosecutor
faile!toconsi!ertheevi!entiaryvalueof thefin!ingsof theNBI
8uestione!!ocu4entse?perts 1hisNBIfin!ing is entitle! to full faith
an! cre!it in the absence of proof of irregularity in the
perfor4ance of thee?perts; !uties%%+ccor!ing to the Secretary, the
e?pert evi!ence, the !isclai4er of the petitioner that he !i! not
sign anypro4issory note, the lac* of proof of receipt of the
procee!s of the loan, all ten!e! to prove that he !i!
note?ecutethesubAect !ee!s
1heco4plainant;sevi!enceis4orecre!iblean!sufficestoestablishprobable
cause for falsification, as against the respon!ents; 8uestionable
an! fla'e! supporting!ocu4ents%.In a!!ition, the fin!ing of the
city prosecutor that the petitioner;s Bcre!it line; 'ith 6etroban*
is sufficientconsi!eration for the e?ecution of the 8uestione!
!ee!s, even if not palpably erroneous, is still gratuitousan!
conAectural%21he Secretaryof ,ustice!enie!the
respon!ents;4otionforreconsi!eration pro4ptingthe4tofileapetition
for certiorari 'ith the C+ 1he respon!ents allege! that the
Secretary of ,ustice co44itte! graveabuse of !iscretion a4ounting
to lac* or e?cess of Auris!iction in issuing the assaile!
resolution%#1he ruling of the Court of +ppeals1he C+ grante! the
petition an! annulle! the assaile! resolution of the Secretary of
,ustice%$+ccor!ing to the C+, the respon!ents 'ere !enie! their
right to !ue process in the procee!ings beforethe NBI an! the
Secretary of ,ustice%=In the procee!ings before the NBI, the
respon!ents 'ere not furnishe! a copy of the co4plaint an! 'erenot
li*e'ise re8uire! to file their ans'er or to present countervailing
evi!ence +ll the evi!ence at the NBIlevel 'ere solely provi!e! by
the petitioner%/In the procee!ings before the Secretary of ,ustice,
the respon!ents 'ere not furnishe! 'ith the petitionfor revie' that
the petitioner file! 1hey 'ere not even re8uire! to file their
ans'er nor to co44ent%01he C+ also foun! that the persons 'ho ha!
been !irectly an! personally involve! in the investigation ofthe
case, li*e the NBI investigating agent an! the city prosecutor,
'ere convince! that the evi!ence 'erenot sufficient for purposes of
filing charges against the respon!ents 1he reco44en!ation for the
filing ofthe co4plaint ca4e fro4 the NBI chiefs an! the Secretary
of ,ustice 'ho !i! not personally investigatethe case%-1he C+
affir4e! the fin!ings of the city prosecutor as he ha! the
opportunity to e?a4ine the !ocu4entssub4itte! by the parties,
inclu!ing the respon!ents; evi!ence 'hich the NBI !i! not consi!er
1he C+!enie! the petitioner;s 4otion for reconsi!eration7.&
hence, the present petitionT'( P(-i-io*(r2/ Po/i-io*1he petitioner
assigne! the follo'ing errorsC@irst, the C+ s'eepingly relie! on
the respon!ents; allegation that they ha! been !enie! !ue process
intheprocee!ingsbeforetheSecretaryof ,ustice!espitetheir
activeparticipationintheprocee!ingsthrough the filing of a 4otion
for reconsi!eration.%Secon!, theC+
erre!ingivingcre!encetothefin!ingsof theinvestigatingNBI agent
an!thecityprosecutor 1he Secretary of ,ustice is the ulti4ate
authority 'ho !eci!es 'hich of the conflicting theoriesof the
co4plainant an! the respon!ents shoul! be given 'eight..1hir!, an
NBI e?pert;s e?a4ination of certain conteste! !ocu4ents at the
re8uest of a private litigant !oesnot necessarily nullify the
e?a4ination 4a!e Its purpose is to assist the court e?ercising
Auris!iction overthe case in the perfor4ance of its !uty to
correctly settle the issue relate! to the !ocu4ents.2T'(
R(/po*3(*-/2 Po/i-io*In the respon!ents; Co44ent an! 6e4oran!u4,
they reiterate! their argu4ent that they 'ere prevente!fro4
participating in the procee!ings before the NBI an! the Secretary
of ,ustice, resulting in the !enial oftheir right to !ue process.#
6oreover, the 8uestione! !ocu4ents report issue! by the NBI 'as
one>si!e!,thus, casting!oubt onitsveracityan!reliability7 thus,
it !eserves no'eight an!cre!ence.$ 1heSecretary of ,ustice erre! in
giving 4ore 'eight to the 8uestione! !ocu4ents report an! the
petitioner;sself>serving !enials.=In a!!ition, the respon!ents
argue! that there 'as no evi!ence pointing to the4 as the
perpetrators of theforgery, if in!ee! there ha! been any 1he e?pert
opinion, !isclai4er of the petitioner an! the allege!
lac*ofproofofreceipt of theprocee!s ofthe loan coul! only
supportafin!ing that the petitioner
!i!note?ecutethe8uestione!!ee!sor obtainloansfro4theban* 1oo,
there'asnoevi!encethat therespon!ents 'oul! gain pecuniary benefits
fro4 the co44ission of the cri4e./T'( Co)r-2/ r)li*+"e fin! the
petition 4eritorious1he respon!ents 'ere not !enie! their right to
!ue process"efin!no4erit intherespon!ent;sclai4that
they'ere!enie!!ueprocess'henthey'erenotinfor4e! by the Secretary of
,ustice of the pen!ency of the petitioner;s appeal1heessence of
!ueprocess
issi4plytheopportunitytobehear!"hatthela'prohibitsisnottheabsenceof
previousnoticebut itsabsoluteabsencean!lac*of opportunitytobehear!
Sufficientco4pliance 'ith the re8uire4ents of!ue processe?ists 'hen
a party is given a chance to be hear!through his 4otion for
reconsi!eration.0In the present case, 'e !o not fin! it !ispute!
that the respon!ents file! 'ith the Secretary of ,ustice a4otion
for reconsi!eration of her resolution 1herefore, any initial !efect
in !ue process, if any, 'as cure!by the re4e!y the respon!ents
availe! ofOn the respon!ents; allegation that they 'ere !enie! !ue
process !uring the NBI investigation, 'e stressthat the functions
of this agency are 4erely investigatory an! infor4ational in nature
It has no Au!icial or8uasi>Au!icial po'ersan!isincapableof
grantinganyrelief toanyparty It cannot even!eter4ineprobablecause
1heNBI isaninvestigativeagency'hosefin!ingsare4erelyreco44en!atory
Itun!erta*es investigation of cri4es upon its o'n initiative or as
public 'elfare 4ay re8uire in accor!ance'ith its 4an!ate It also
ren!ers assistance 'hen re8ueste! in the investigation or !etection
of cri4es inor!er to prosecute the persons responsible.-Since the
NBI;s fin!ings 'ere 4erely reco44en!atory, 'e fin! that no !enialof
the respon!ents; !ueprocess right coul! have ta*en place7 the NBI;s
fin!ings 'ere stillsubAect to the prosecutor;s an! theSecretary of
,ustice;s actions for purposes of fin!ing the e?istence of probable
cause"e fin! it significant that the speci4en signatures in the
possession of 6etroban* 'ere sub4itte! by therespon!ents for the
consi!eration of the city prosecutor an! eventually of the
Secretary of ,ustice !uringthepreli4inaryinvestigationprocee!ings
1hus, theseofficersha!theopportunitytoe?a4inethesesignatures1he
respon!ents 'ere not li*e'ise !enie! their right to !ue process
'hen the NBI issue! the 8uestione!!ocu4ents report "e note that
this report 4erely state! that the signatures appearing on the t'o
!ee!san! in the petitioner;s sub4itte! sa4ple signatures 'ere not
'ritten by one an! the sa4eperson2& Notably, there 'as no
categorical fin!ing in the 8uestione! !ocu4ents report that
therespon!entsfalsifie!the!ocu4ents 1hisreport, too,
'asprocure!!uringthecon!uct of theNBI;sinvestigationat
thepetitioner;sre8uest for assistanceintheinvestigationof
theallege!cri4eoffalsification 1he report is inconclusive an! !oes
not prevent the respon!ents fro4 securing a
separate!ocu4entse?a4inationbyhan!'ritinge?pertsbase!ontheir
o'nevi!ence Onitso'n, theNBI;s8uestione!!ocu4ents report !oesnot
!irectlypoint totherespon!ents; involve4ent inthecri4echarge! Its
significance is that, ta*en together 'ith the other pieces of
evi!ence sub4itte! by the parties!uring the preli4inary
investigation, these evi!ence coul! be sufficient for purposes of
fin!ing probablecause D the action that the Secretary of ,ustice
un!ertoo* in the present case1he Secretary of ,ustice !i! not
co44it grave abuse of !iscretionProbable cause pertains to facts
an! circu4stances sufficient to support a 'ell>foun!e! belief
that a cri4ehas been co44itte! an! the accuse! is probably guilty
thereof2%It is 'ell>settle! that in or!er to arrive at a fin!ing
of probable cause, the ele4ents of the cri4e charge!shoul!
bepresent In!eter4ining these ele4ents for purposes ofpreli4inary
investigation, only factssufficient to support a pri4a facie case
against the respon!ent are re8uire!, not absolute certainty
1hus,probable cause i4plies 4ere probability of guilt, ie, a
fin!ing base! on 4ore than bare suspicion but lessthan evi!ence
that 'oul! Austify a conviction2.1he ele4ents of falsification of
public !ocu4ents are as follo'sC (%) the offen!er is a private
in!ivi!ual ora public officer or e4ployee 'ho !i! not ta*e
a!vantage of his official position7 (.) he co44itte! any ofthe acts
of falsification enu4erate! in +rticle %/% of the RPC7 an! (2) the
falsification 'as co44itte! in apublic, official or co44ercial
!ocu4ent22In light of the !iscussion above, 'e rule that the
fin!ings of the Secretary of ,ustice are 4ore in accor!'ith the
!uty to !eter4ine the e?istence of probable cause than the fin!ings
of the city prosecutorContrary to the respon!ents; assertions, the
Secretary of ,ustice !i! not Aust 4erely give cre!ence to
the8uestione! !ocu4ents report an!the petitioner;s
self>servingallegations1wphi1 1he Secretary
of,ustice4a!eaholisticrevie'of theparties;sub4itte!piecesof
evi!enceinrulingthat Ethee?pertevi!ence, the !isclai4er of the
petitioner that he !i! not sign any pro4issory note, the lac* of
proof ofreceipt of the procee!s of the loan, all ten! to prove that
he !i! not e?ecute the subAect !ee!s +lso,
thefin!ingintheassaile!resolutionthat theBcre!it line; of
thepetitioner 'ith6etroban*is sufficientconsi!eration for hi4 to
have e?ecute! the !ee!s is gratuitous an!
conAecturalE@ro4theevi!encesub4itte!bytheparties, thepetitioner
offere!sufficient evi!encesho'ingthatfalsification 4ight have been
co44itte! an! that the respon!ents 4ight have been responsible
therefor1he NBI;s 8uestione! !ocu4ents report states that the
8uestione! !ee!s of 4ortgage an! the sa4plesignatures sub4itte! by
the petitioner 'ere not 'ritten by one an! the sa4e person It 'as
also sho'nthat the respon!ents Dee, So, 6agpantay an! 6iran!a
signe! an! participate! in the e?ecution of thet'o !ee!s of real
estate 4ortgage an! the respon!ent 6acillan signe! an! sub4itte!
these !ocu4ents tothe Office of the Registrar of Dee!s for San
,uan, 6etro 6anila 1he petitioner also sub4itte! evi!encethat
thepassport use!innotari9ingthe!ocu4ents'asacancelle!passport
@urther4ore, astheSecretary of ,ustice foun!, the respon!ents !i!
not sho' that the petitioner receive! the procee!s of theloan1he
fin!ings of the city prosecutor are not proper in a preli4inary
investigation but shoul! be threshe! outin a full>blo'n
trialIncontrast, the city prosecutor negate!the8uestione! !ocu4ents
report issue! by the NBI 3econclu!e! that the !ocu4ents sub4itte!
by the respon!ents sho'e! that even a lay4an coul! see
thestri*ingsi4ilarities of theallege!signatures of thepetitioner
inthe8uestione!!ee!san!inthe!ocu4ents sub4itte! by the respon!ents
3e also conclu!e! that the petitioner 4isrepresente! to
therespon!ents>notaries public 6iran!a an! 6agpantay that the
passport use! in notari9ing the 8uestione!!ee!s 'as not yet
cancelle!In arriving at these conclusions, the city prosecutor
alrea!y !elve! into the 4erits of the respon!ents;!efense1his is
contraryto the'ell>settle!rulethat the
vali!ityan!4eritsofaparty;s!efense an!accusation, as 'ell as
a!4issibility of testi4onies an! evi!ence, are better ventilate!
!uring trial properthan at the preli4inary investigation level2#
1he allegations a!!uce! by the prosecution 'ill be put to testin a
full>blo'ntrialin 'hich evi!ence shallbeanaly9e!, 'eighe!, given
cre!enceor !isprove!2$ 1hepreli4inary investigation is not the
occasion for the full an! e?haustive !isplay of the
parties;evi!ence2= Si4ply put, in !eter4ining probable cause, the
average 4an 'eighs facts an! circu4stances'ithout resorting to the
rules of evi!ence that, as a rule, is outsi!e his technical
*no'le!ge2/1hat the fin!ings of the city prosecutor shoul! be
ventilate! in a full>blo'n trial is highlighte! by the
realitythat the authenticity of a 8uestione! signature cannot be
!eter4ine! solely upon its generalcharacteristics, or its
si4ilarities or !issi4ilarities 'ith the genuine signature20 1he
!uty to !eter4ine theauthenticityof
asignaturerestsontheAu!ge'ho4ust con!uct anin!epen!ent
e?a4inationof thesignature itself in or!er to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity 1hus, Section .. of
Rule%2. of the Rules of Court e?plicitly authori9es the court, by
itself, to 4a*e a co4parison of the
!ispute!han!'ritingE'ith'ritingsa!4itte!ortreate!asgenuinebythepartyagainst
'ho4theevi!enceisoffere!, or prove! to be genuineE2-Rea! in this
light, the respon!entsF !efense that there are stri*ing
si4ilarities in the speci4en signaturesthey sub4itte! an! those of
the 8uestione! !ee!s is a 4atter of evi!ence 'hose consi!eration is
properonlyinafull>blo'ntrial Inthat proper foru4,
therespon!entscanpresent evi!encetoprovetheir!efense an! controvert
the 8uestione! !ocu4ents report7 they can raise as issue the
allege! irregularitiesin the con!uct of the e?a4ination1he
Secretary of ,ustice has the po'er to revie' the fin!ings of the
city prosecutor"e also fin! that the C+ erre! in ruling that the
city prosecutorFs fin!ings shoul! be given 4ore 'eightthan the
fin!ings of the Secretary of ,ustice1he !eter4ination of probable
cause is essentially an e?ecutive function, lo!ge! in the first
place on theprosecutor 'hocon!ucte!thepreli4inaryinvestigation
1heprosecutorFsrulingisrevie'ablebytheSecretary 'ho, as the
final!eter4inative authority on the 4atter, has the po'er to
reverse, 4o!ify oraffir4 the prosecutorFs !eter4ination#&It is
'ell>settle! that the fin!ings of the Secretary of ,ustice are
not subAect to interference by the courts,save only 'hen he acts
'ith grave abuse of !iscretion a4ounting to lac* or e?cess of
Auris!iction7 'henhe grossly4isapprehen!s facts7'hen he acts in a
4anner so patentan! grossas to a4ount to anevasion of positive !uty
or a virtual refusal to perfor4 the !uty enAoine! by la'7 or 'hen
he acts outsi!ethe conte4plation of la'#%Contrary to the fin!ings
of the C+, 'e fin! that the Secretary of ,ustice !i! not gravely
abuse the e?erciseof her !iscretion in reversing the fin!ings of
the city prosecutor"3ERE@ORE, 'eGR+N1thepetitionan!REVERSEan!SE1
+SIDEthe!ecisionof theCourt of+ppeals !ate! ,une %-, .&&/
an! its resolution !ate! +pril #, .&&0SO ORDEREDRepublic of
the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTBaguio City13IRD DIVISIONG.R. No.
200103 April 23, 2014C4# SER4CE COMMSSON, Petitioner, vsMARCE##E M.
CORTES, Respon!ent! E CSO NA%A!, J.:1his case concerns the vali!ity
of appoint4ent by the Co44ission En Banc 'here the appointee is
the!aughter of one of the Co44issionersT'( &10-/ 1*3 -'(
C1/(On@ebruary%-,.&&0theCo44issionEnBanc of
theCo44issionon3u4anRights
(C3R)issue!Resolution+.&&0>%-approvingtheappoint4ent
tothepositionof Infor4ationOfficer V(IOV) ofrespon!ent 6aricelle 6
Cortes Co44issioner Eligio P 6allari, father of respon!ent Cortes,
abstaine!fro4 voting an! re8ueste! the C3R to ren!er an opinion on
the legality of the respon!entFs appoint4entIn a 6e4oran!u4 !ate!
6arch 2%, .&&0, C3R :egal Division Chief +tty Efren Ephrai4
G :a4orenaren!ere! an opinion that respon!ent CortesF appoint4ent
is not covere! by the rule on nepotis4
becausetheappointingauthority, theCo44issionEnBanc,
hasapersonality!istinct an!separatefro4its4e4bers C3R Chairperson
Purificacion C Valera NCR@iel!Officeinfor4e!ChairpersonNCR,
Co44issioner 6allari is consi!ere! an appointing authority 'ith
respect torespon!ent Cortes !espite being a 4ere 4e4ber of the
Co44ission En BancRespon!ent Cortes appeale! the ruling of Director
Cornelio but the sa4e 'as !enie! on Septe4ber
2&,.&&0Conse8uently, respon!ent Cortes file! a petition
for revie' on Nove4ber .#, .&&0 before the CSCOn 6arch.,
.&%&theCSCissue! Resolution%&>&2/&'hereit
!enie!the petitionan!affir4e!thenepotic character of respon!ent
Cortes; appoint4ent Respon!ent Cortes file! a 6otion
forReconsi!eration but the sa4e 'as !enie! in Resolution
%&>%2-= !ate! ,uly %., .&%&Conse8uently, in a letter
!ate! +ugust %&, .&%&, C3R Co44issioner an!
Officer>in>Charge 6a VictoriaV Car!ona ter4inate!
respon!ent;s services effective +ugust #, .&%&On +ugust %=,
.&%&, respon!ent Cortes file! a Petition for Revie' 'ith
Prayer for Issuance of 1e4poraryRestraining Or!er an!Hor "rit of
Preli4inary InAunction 'ith the Court of +ppeals (C+)On +ugust %%,
.&%%, the C+ ren!ere! its Decision granting the petition an!
nullifie! Resolution %&>&2/&!ate! 6arch .,
.&%& an! %&>%2-= !ate! ,uly %., .&%& 1he C+
also or!ere! that Cortes be reinstate! toher position as IO V in
the C3RPetitioner file! a 6otion for Reconsi!eration but the sa4e
'as !enie! by the C+ in a Resolution !ate!,anuary %&,
.&%.3ence, this petition//)( o, -'( C1/("hether or not the C+
erre! 'hen it rule! that the appoint4ent of respon!ent Cortes as IO
V in the C3Ris not covere! by the prohibition against
nepotis4Ruling of the Court1he petition is i4presse! 'ith
4eritNepotis4is!efine!asanappoint4ent issue!infavor of
arelative'ithinthethir!civil !egreeofconsanguinity or affinity of
any of the follo'ingC (%) appointing authority7 (.) reco44en!ing
authority7 (2)chief of the bureau or office7 an! (#) person
e?ercising i44e!iate supervision over the appointee% 3ere,it
isun!ispute!that respon!ent Cortesisarelativeof Co44issioner
6allari inthefirst !egreeofconsanguinity, as in fact Cortes is the
!aughter of Co44issioner 6allariBy 'ay of e?ception, the follo'ing
shallnot be covere! by the prohibitionC (%) persons e4ploye! in
aconfi!ential capacity7 (.) teachers7 (2) physicians7 an! (#)
4e4bers of the +r4e! @orces of thePhilippines. In the present case,
ho'ever, the appoint4ent of respon!ent Cortes as IO V in the
C3R!oes not fall to any of the e?e4ptions provi!e! by la'In her
!efense, respon!ent Cortes 4erely raises the argu4ent that the
appointing authority referre! to inSection $- of the +!4inistrative
Co!e is the Co44ission En Banc an! not the in!ivi!ual
Co44issioners'ho co4pose it1he purpose of Section $- on the rule
against nepotis4 is to ta*e out the !iscretion of the appointing
an!reco44en!ing authority on the 4atter of appointing or
reco44en!ing for appoint4ent a relative 1he ruleinsures the
obAectivity of the appointing or reco44en!ing official by
preventing that obAectivity fro4 beingin fact teste!2 Clearly, the
prohibition against nepotis4 is inten!e! to apply to natural
persons It is onepernicious evil i4pe!ing the civil service an! the
efficiency of its personnel#6oreover, basic rule in statutory
construction is the legal 4a?i4 that E'e 4ust interpret not by the
letterthat *illeth, but by the spirit that giveth lifeE 1o rule
that the prohibition applies only to the Co44ission,an! not to the
in!ivi!ual 4e4bers 'ho co4pose it, 'ill ren!er the prohibition
4eaningless +pparently,the Co44ission En Banc, 'hich is a bo!y
create! by fiction of la', can never have relatives to spea*
ofIn!ee!, it is absur! to !eclare that the prohibitive veil on
nepotis4 !oes not inclu!e appoint4ents 4a!ebyagroupof
in!ivi!ualsactingasabo!y1wphi1 "hat cannot be!one!irectlycannot
be!onein!irectly 1his principle is ele4entary an! !oes not nee!
e?planation Certainly, if acts that cannot belegally !one !irectly
can be !one in!irectly, then all la's 'oul! be illusoryIn the
present case, respon!ent CortesF appoint4ent as IO V in the C3R by
the Co44ission En
Banc,'herehisfatherisa4e4ber,iscovere!bytheprohibition
Co44issioner6allariFsabstentionfro4voting !i! not cure the
nepotistic character of the appoint4ent because the evil sought to
be avoi!e! bythe prohibition still e?ists 3is 4ere presence !uring
the !eliberation for the appoint4ent of IO V create!an i4pression
of influence an! cast !oubt on the i4partiality an! neutrality of
the Co44ission En Banc"3ERE@ORE, the instant petition is GR+N1ED
1he Decision !ate! +ugust %%, .&%% an! Resolution!ate! ,anuary
%&, .&%. of the Court of +ppeals in C+>GR SP %%$20&
are REVERSED an! SE1 +SIDE1he Resolution of the Civil Service
Co44ission !ate! 6arch ., .&%& affir4ing the CSC>NCR
Decision!ate!Septe4ber 2&,
.&&0invali!atingtheappoint4ent of respon!ent 6aricelle6
Cortesforbeingnepotistic is hereby REINS1+1EDSO ORDEREDRepublic of
the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTBaguio CitySECOND DIVISIONG.R. No.
200358 April 7, 2014PEOP#E O& THE PH#PPNES,
Plaintiff>+ppellee, vsGERRY YA%#E . USMAN, +ccuse!>+ppellant!
E CSO NPERE5, J.:@or revie' of this Court is the appeal file! by
Gerry Iable y Js4an (Gerry) assailing the .2 6ay
.&%%Decision%of the Court of +ppeals (C+) in C+>GR CR>3C
No &22&2 1he C+ affir4e! the Decision of
theRegional1rialCourt (R1C), Branch /0,bust 4oney 1o 4ar*
thebuy>bust 4oney, she place! her initials on the forehea! of
Senator Benigno +8uino, ,r2 It 'as planne!that PO% Vargas 'oul! be
intro!uce! by the infor4er to Gerry as a buyer +fter the e?change
of 4oneyan! shabu, PO% Vargas 'oul! scratch her forehea! to
in!icate the consu44ation of the sale an! assignalfor the
bac*>up tea4 to approach an! apprehen! Gerry + pre>operation
report 'as prepare! tocoor!inate the buy>bust operation 'ith the
Philippine Drug Enforce4ent +gency (PDE+)#+t %.C&& oCcloc*
noon of./ +pril .&&$, the tea4 procee!e! to the target
areaPO% Vargas an! theinfor4ant 4et Gerryat :o'er Ias4inStreet,
Payatas, arrange! signal by scratching her forehea! an!
thebac*>uppolice4enapproache!an!intro!uce!the4selvestoGerry
PO.,osephOrti9(PO.Orti9)searche! Gerry an! foun! in his poc*et the
five hun!re! peso (Php$&&&&) bill 'hich containe!
the EPVEinitials= PO. Orti9 apprise! Gerry of his right to re4ain
silent an! his right to engage the services of ala'yer because they
'oul! be filing a case for violation of R+ No -%=$ against hi4
Gerry chose tore4ain silent an! the tea4 boar!e! hi4 in their
vehicle 3e 'as brought to the City 3all of bust operation con!ucte!
enAoye! thepresu4ptionof regularity,absent anysho'ingof
ill>4otiveonthepart of thepoliceoperatives'hocon!ucte! the
sa4e1he C+li*e'ise foun! Gerry;s !efenses of !enial an!
fra4e>upunconvincingan! lac*e! strongcorroboration3ence, this
appealSSUEGerry raise! in his brief the follo'ing errors on the
part of the appellate court, to 'itC1he trial court gravely erre!
in fin!ing the accuse!>appellant guilty beyon! reasonable !oubt
of the cri4echarge!1hetrial court
gravelyerre!inconvictingtheaccuse!>appellant
!espitetheprosecution;sfailuretoestablish the chain of custo!y of
the allege! confiscate! !rug%.O)r R)li*+1he appeal is bereft of
4eritGerry sub4its that the trialcourt an! the C+ faile! to
consi!er the proce!uralfla's co44itte! by thearresting officers in
the sei9ure an! custo!y of !rugs as e4bo!ie! in Section .%,
paragraph %, +rticle II,R+ No -%=$%2Gerry alleges that no physical
inventory or photograph 'as con!ucte! at the cri4e sceneor in his
presence Instea!, the 4ar*ing of the confiscate! !rug 'as !one in
front of the investigator at thepolice precinct Such lapses on the
part of the apprehen!ing officers raises !oubt on 'hether the
shabusub4itte! for laboratory e?a4ination an! subse8uently
presente! in court as evi!ence, 'as the sa4eone confiscate! fro4
Gerry%#Relevant
toGerry;scaseistheproce!uretobefollo'e!inthecusto!yan!han!lingof
thesei9e!!angerous !rugs as outline! in Section .%, paragraph %,
+rticle II, R+ No -%=$, 'hich rea!sC(%) 1he apprehen!ing tea4
having initial custo!y an! control of the !rugs shall, i44e!iately
after sei9urean! confiscation, physically inventory an! photograph
the sa4e in the presence of the accuse! or thepersonHs fro4 'ho4
such ite4s 'ere confiscate! an!Hor sei9e!, or hisHher
representative or counsel, arepresentative fro4 the 4e!ia an! the
Depart4ent of ,ustice (DO,), an! any electe! public official
'hoshall be re8uire! to sign the copies of the inventory an! be
given a copy thereofKL1his provision is elaborate! in Section
.%(a), +rticle II of the I4ple4enting Rules an! Regulations of R+No
-%=$, 'hich statesC(a) 1he apprehen!ing officerHtea4 having initial
custo!y an! control of the !rugs shall, i44e!iately aftersei9ure
an! confiscation, physically inventory an! photograph the sa4e in
the presence of the accuse! orthe personHs fro4 'ho4 such ite4s
'ere confiscate! an!Hor sei9e!, or hisHher representative or
counsel,a representative fro4 the 4e!ia an! the Depart4ent of
,ustice (DO,), an! any electe! public official 'hoshall
bere8uire!to sign thecopiesof theinventoryan! be givena copy
thereofC Provi!e!, thatthephysical inventory an! photograph shall
be con!ucte! at the place 'here the search 'arrant is serve!7 orat
thenearest policestationor at thenearest officeof
theapprehen!ingofficerHtea4, 'hichever ispracticable, in case of
'arrantless sei9ures7 Provi!e!, further, that non>co4pliance
'ith thesere8uire4ents un!er Austifiable groun!s, as long as the
integrity an! the evi!entiary value of the sei9e!ite4s are properly
preserve! by the apprehen!ing officerHtea4, shallnot ren!er voi!
an! invali! suchsei9ures of an! custo!y over sai! ite4s (E4phasis
supplie!)Clearly, the aforecite! rule authori9es substantial
co4pliance 'ith the proce!ure to establish a chain ofcusto!y, as
long as the integrity an! evi!entiary value of the sei9e! ite4 is
properly preserve! by theapprehen!ing officers In People v
Pringas,%$ the Courtrecogni9e!thatthestrictco4pliance 'ith
there8uire4ents of Section .% 4ay not al'ays be possible un!er
fiel! con!itions7 the police operates un!ervarie! con!itions, an!
cannot at all ti4es atten! to all the niceties of the proce!ures in
the han!ling ofconfiscate! evi!ence3ere, the prosecution recogni9e!
the proce!urallapses an! e?erte! efforts to cite Austifiable
groun!sDuring the re>!irect e?a4ination of PO. Orti9, he
testifie! as follo'sC&$E 'as in!icate! on the sei9e! ite4 Such
4ar*ing, as testifie! by the police investigator, 'as 4a!eby PO%
Vargas in his presence at the ti4e the evi!ence 'as turne! over to
hi4 1his a!4ission of theparties co4plete! the chain of custo!y of
the sei9e! ite4@urther4ore, this Court has consistently rule! that
even in instances 'here the arresting officers faile! tota*e a
photograph of the sei9e! !rugs as re8uire! un!er Section .% of R+
No -%=$, such proce!urallapseisnot fatal an!'ill not ren!er
theite4ssei9e!ina!4issibleinevi!ence.& "hat isof
ut4osti4portance is the preservation of the integrity an!
evi!entiary value of the sei9e! ite4s, as the sa4e'oul! be utili9e!
in the !eter4ination of the guilt or innocence of the accuse!.% In
other 'or!s, to bea!4issibleinevi!ence, theprosecution4ust
beabletopresent throughrecor!sor testi4ony, the'hereabouts of the
!angerous !rugs fro4 the ti4e these 'ere sei9e! fro4 the accuse! by
the arrestingofficers7 turne!>over totheinvestigatingofficer7
for'ar!e!tothelaboratoryfor!eter4inationof theirco4position7
an!uptotheti4etheseareoffere!inevi!ence @or aslongasthechainof
custo!yre4ains unbro*en, as in this case, even though the
proce!ural re8uire4ents provi!e! for in Section .% ofR+ No -%=$ 'as
not faithfully observe!, the guilt of the accuse! 'ill not be
affecte!..1he integrity of the evi!ence is presu4e! to have been
preserve! unless there is a sho'ing of ba! faith,ill 'ill, or proof
that the evi!ence has been ta4pere! 'ith Gerry bears the bur!en of
sho'ing that theevi!ence'asta4pere!or 4e!!le!'ithinor!er
tooverco4ethepresu4ptionof regularityinthehan!ling of e?hibits by
public officers an! the presu4ption that public officers properly
!ischarge! their!uties.2 Gerry in this case faile! to present any
plausible reason to i4pute ill 4otive on the part of thearresting
officers 1hus, the testi4onies of the apprehen!ing officers !eserve
full faith an! cre!it.# In fact,Gerry !i! not even 8uestion the
cre!ibility of the prosecution 'itnesses 3e anchore! his appeal
solelyon the allege! bro*en chain of the custo!y of the sei9e!
!rugsOn the basis of the aforesai! !is8uisition, 'e fin! no reason
to 4o!ify or set asi!e the Decision of the C+Gerry 'as correctly
foun! to be guilty beyon! reasonable !oubt of violating Section $7
+rticle II of R+No -%=$"3ERE@ORE, the appeal is DENIED an! the .2
6ay .&%% Decision of the Court of +ppeals in C+>GRCR>3C
No &22&2 is hereby +@@IR6EDSO ORDERED
