G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014
MA. GRACIA HAO and DANNY HAO, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On July 11, 2003, private complainant Manuel Dy filed a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 against petitioners Ma. Gracia Hao (also known as Mina Tan Hao) and Danny Hao, and Victor Ngo. Dy alleged that Ngo, then manager of Asiatrust Bank, introduced him to Gracia, who presented herself as an officer of various companies and an incorporator of State Resources Development Corporation. Relying on their assurances, Dy invested approximately ₱100,000,000.00 in State Resources. Gracia issued checks representing earnings totaling ₱114,286,086.14, all of which were dishonored. Dy later learned his money was invested in Danny Hao’s construction business. A supplemental affidavit added other incorporators/directors of State Resources as accused. An information for syndicated estafa was filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Manila, issued warrants of arrest. Petitioners filed a motion to defer arraignment and lift the warrant, citing absence of probable cause and a pending petition for review with the Department of Justice. The RTC denied these motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, finding the judge personally determined probable cause for issuance of the warrants. However, the CA opined that based on the affidavits, the evidence only showed probable cause for simple estafa, not syndicated estafa, as there was no showing the fraud was against the general public or a group. Nevertheless, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC as probable cause for simple estafa existed. Petitioners sought review, arguing inconsistencies in Dy’s affidavits negated probable cause, that only Ngo enticed Dy, that State Resources was dissolved in 1995, and that the warrants were void because the CA found PD 1689 inapplicable.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals correctly determine that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to defer arraignment and motion to lift warrant of arrest?

RULING

Yes, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals correctly determined the absence of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The judge complied with the constitutional and procedural mandate to personally determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, as evidenced by the RTC order stating the warrants were issued after the judge’s “personal examination of the facts and circumstances.” The judge’s task at that stage is to determine probability, not certainty, of guilt. The distinction between the executive (prosecutor) and judicial (judge) determinations of probable cause was observed. While the CA expressed a view that the evidence might only support simple estafa, this did not negate the existence of probable cause for a crime, nor did it invalidate the warrants. The offense charged could be amended at the proper time. The RTC’s denial of the motions, based on a valid finding of probable cause, was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.