MA. GRACIA HAO AND DANNY HAO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. 183345 Septembe 1! "#14 F$%t& ' Manuel Dy Awiten (Dy), claimed that as a longtime client of Asiatrust Bank (where Ngo was the manager) manager) and because because of their good good business business relationship, relationship, he took took Ngo’s adice to deposit his his money in an inestment inestment that will will gie a higher rate rate of return! return! Ngo introduced introduced Dy to "racia "racia #ao (#ao) (#ao) (petit (petition ioner) er),, who who presen presented ted herse herself lf as an offic officer er of ario arious us reput reputab able le compa companie nies s and and an incorp incorpora orato torr of $tate $tate %esou %esource rces s Deelo Deelopme pment nt &orpo &orporat ration ion where where subse'uently D inested!
Dy’s initial inestment was *+M! #e receied the promised interest from is inestment! hus, conincing him to inest more! #e inested almost *++M! he additional inestments were gien gien through through checks! "racio #ao also issued issued seeral seeral checks checks represe representin nting g Dy’s Dy’s earnings earnings!! hese checks were subse'uently dishonored! Dy seek seek Ngo’s Ngo’s help help to recoe recoerr the amoun amount! t! Ngo promis promised ed,, howee howeer, r, Dy subse subse'u 'uen ently tly discoered that the former already resigned from the bank! his time, Dy confronted "racia! Dy learned that his money was inested in the realty business of "racia #ao’s realty business! Dy filed a complaint with the public prosecutor! he public prosecutor filed an information for syndicated estafa! -arrant of arrest were subse'uently issued against the #ao’s and other accused #ao filed a motion to defer arraignment and motion to lift warrant of arrest! hey inoked lack of probable cause and the pendency of their petition for reiew with the D./! %& denied the petitioner’s twin motion! &A affirmed the %&’s decision with regard to the twin motion! #oweer, the &A opined that the information shows only probable cause for simple estafa only! #ence this petition! I&&(e' -hether or not the arraignment shall be deferred because of the pendency of the petition for reiew with the D./ He)*' N.! 0nder 0nder $ecti $ection on **(c), (c), %ule %ule **1of 1of the %ules %ules of &ourt, &ourt, an arraig arraignm nmen entt may be suspended if there is a petition for reiew of the resolution of the prosecutor pending at either the D./, or the .ffice of the resident! resident! #oweer, such period of suspension should not e2ceed si2ty (1+) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reiewing office!
As the petitioners petitioners alleged, alleged, they they filed a petition for for reiew with with the D./ on Noember Noember 3*, 3++4! 3++4! $ince this petition had not been resoled yet, they claimed that their arraignment should be suspended indefinitely!
-e emphasi5e that the right of an accused to hae his arraignment suspended is not an un'ualified right! 6n $pouses rinidad ! Ang, we e2plained that while the pendency of a petition for reiew is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the %ules limit the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 1+ days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reiewing office! 6t follows, therefore, that after the e2piration of the 1+7day period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment!
As the trial court found in its 8ebruary 31, 3++9 order, the D./:s delay in resoling the petitioners: petition for reiew had already e2ceeded 1+ days! $ince the suspension of the petitioners: arraignment was already beyond the period allowed by the %ules, the petitioners: motion to suspend completely lacks any legal basis!
As a final note, we obsere that the resolution of this case had long been delayed because of the petitioners: refusal to submit to the trial court:s ;urisdiction and their erroneous inocation of the %ules in their faor! As there is probable cause for the petitioners: commission of a crime, their arrest and arraignment should now ensue so that this case may properly proceed to trial, where the merits of both the parties: eidence and allegations may be weighed!
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM WITH MODIFIATION the Febr!ary "#, "$$% decision and &!ne '(, "$$# reso)!tion o* the o!rt o* Appea)s in A+R -. No #%"#/ We hereby order that petitioners Ma +racia Hao and Danny Hao be char0ed *or simp)e esta*a !nder Artic)e ('12"32a3 o* the Re4ised .ena) ode, as amended and be arrai0ned *or this char0e The warrants o* arrest iss!ed stand
3! -.N a alid warrant of arrest is issued
<$! o be alid, the warrants must hae been issued after compliance with the re'uirement that probable cause be personally determined by the ;udge! Notably at this stage, the ;udge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused!6n doing so, he need not conduct a hearing= he only needs to personally reiew the prosecutor:s initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial eidence!
he records showed that /udge Mar'ue5 made a personal determination of the e2istence of probable cause to support the issuance of the warrants! he petitioners, in fact, did not present any eidence to controert this! As the trial court ruled in its 8ebruary 31, 3++9 order>
he non7arrest of all the accused or their refusal to surrender practically resulted in the suspension of arraignment e2ceeding the si2ty (1+) days counted from the filing of co7accused De /oya’s motions, which may be considered a petition for reiew, and that of co7accused $pouses #ao’s own petition for reiew! his is not to mention the delay in the resolution by the Department of /ustice! .n the other hand, co7accused De/oya’s motion to determine probable cause and co7accused $pouses #ao’s motion to lift warrant of arrest hae been rendered moot and academic with the issuance of warrants of arrest by this presiding ;udge after his personal e2amination of the facts and circumstances strong enough in themseles to support the belief that they are guilty of the crime that in fact happened! 4+ ?
0nder this situation, we conclude that /udge Mar'ue5 did not arbitrarily issue the warrants of arrest against the petitioners! As stated by him, the warrants were only issued after his personal ealuation of the factual circumstances that led him to beliee that there was probable cause to apprehend the petitioners for their commission of a criminal offense!