GR 150185; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150185 ; May 27, 2004
TERESITA TANGHAL OKABE, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO DE LEON GUTIERREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Pasay City, Branch 119; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; and CECILIA MARUYAMA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teresita Okabe was charged with estafa before the Pasay City RTC. The Information alleged she received money in trust for delivery in the Philippines but misappropriated it. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause and filed the Information, appending only the affidavit-complaint of private respondent Cecilia Maruyama and the prosecutor’s resolution. The trial court issued a warrant for Okabe’s arrest. Okabe posted bail but subsequently traveled abroad. The private prosecutor then secured a hold departure order from the trial court.
Okabe filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer arraignment. She argued that the judge could not have personally determined probable cause for arrest as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court because the records submitted by the prosecutor were incomplete. Specifically, only the complaint-affidavit and the resolution were attached, omitting the affidavits of witnesses, her counter-affidavit, and other evidence from the preliminary investigation. The trial court denied her motion, prompting a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest without personally determining probable cause based on the complete records of the preliminary investigation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution and Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence before issuing a warrant of arrest. This judicial determination requires the examination of the complete records of the preliminary investigation, not merely the prosecutor’s resolution and the complaint.
In this case, the investigating prosecutor forwarded only the Information, the complaint-affidavit, and the resolution to the trial court. Critical documents like witness affidavits, the petitioner’s counter-affidavit, and other evidence were omitted. Consequently, the judge had an insufficient basis for an independent assessment of probable cause. The Court clarified that while a judge may rely on the prosecutor’s finding, such reliance presupposes that the judge has the entire investigative record for review. The failure to require the submission of the complete record deprived the judge of the basis to fulfill this constitutional duty. Thus, the orders and the warrant of arrest were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine probable cause based on the complete records.