SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014
Petitioners, v. !EO!"E O# $HE !HI"I!!INES , MA. GRACIA HAO AND DANN HAO , Petitioners, Respondent . DECISION %RION, J.&
Before this Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Ma. Gracia Hao and anny Hao ! petitioners". petitioners". #hey see$ the reversal of the Court of ' %ppeals& !CA !CA"" decision dated (ebruary '), '**+ and resolution dated -une 1, '**) in C% G.R. /0 o. )+')2. #hese C% rulin3s affired the (ebruary '+, '**44 and -uly '+, '**45 orders of the Re3ional #rial Court ! RTC " of Manila, which respectively denied the petitioners& otion to defer arrai3nent and otion to lift warrant of arrest.+ cralawlawlibrary
#'(t)'* A+te(ee+t-
n -uly 11, '** private coplainant Manuel y y y y %witen %witen ! Dy" Dy" filed a criinal coplaint a3ainst the petitioners and 6ictor 3o ! Ngo" Ngo" for syndicated estafa penali7ed estafa penali7ed under %rticle 15!'" !a" of the Revised 0enal Code ! RPC RPC ", ", as aended, in relation with 0residential ecree ! PD" PD" o. 8 1+)2. cralawlawlibrary
y alle3ed that he was a lon3tie client of %siatrust Ban$, Binondo Branch where 3o was the ana3er. Because of their 3ood business relationship, y too$ 3o&s advice to deposit his oney in an investent house that will 3ive a hi3her rate of return. 3o then introduced hi to Ma. Gracia Hao !Gracia !Gracia", ", also $nown as Mina #an Hao, who presented herself as an officer of various reputable copanies and an incorporator of /tate Resources evelopent Corporation !State Resources", Resources", the recoended copany that can 3ive y his hi3her investent return.) cralawlawlibrary
Relyin3 on 3o and Gracia&s assurances, y initially invested in /tate Resources the appro9iate aount of #en Million 0esos !01*,***,***.**". #his initial investent earned the proised interests, leadin3 y, y, at the ur3in3 of Gracia, to increase increase his investent to alost ne Hundred Million 0esos 0esos !01**,***,***.**". y increased his investents throu3h several chec$s he issued in the nae of /tate Resources.2 :n return, Gracia also issued several chec$s to y representin3 his earnin3s for his investent. Gracia issued chec$s in the total aount of ne Hundred (ourteen Million, #wo #wo Hundred ;i3hty /i9 #housand, ;i3hty /i9 0esos and (ourteen Centavos !0114,')+,*)+.14". %ll these chec$s1* were subse
all incorporators 11 and?or directors of /tate Resources. cralawlawlibrary
n the basis of y&s coplaint1' and suppleental affidavit,1 the public prosecutor filed an inforation14 for syndicated estafa a3ainst estafa a3ainst the petitioners petitioners and their si9 coaccused. #he case was doc$eted as Criinal Case o. *'1225' and was raffled to respondent R#C of Manila, Branch 4*. -ud3e 0lacido Mar
and the pendency of their petition for review with the epartent of -ustice ! DOJ ".15
cralawlawlibrary
:n its (ebruary '+, '**4 order, the trial court denied the petitioners& twin otions.1+ #he petitioners oved for reconsideration but the trial court also denied this in its -uly '+, '**4 order. Conse
#he C% affired the denial of the petitioners& otion to defer arrai3nent and otion to lift warrant of arrest. :n deterinin3 probable cause for the issuance o f a warrant of arrest, a @ud3e is andated to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supportin3 evidence.18 #he C% noted that -ud3e Mar
:n its decision, however, the C% opined that the evidence on record and the assertions in y&s affidavits only show probable cause for the crie of siple estafa, not syndicated estafa. Ander 0 o. 1+)2, in order for syndicated estafa to e9ist, the swindlin3 ust have been coitted by five or ore persons, and the fraud ust be a3ainst the 3eneral public or at least a 3roup of persons. :n his coplaintaffidavit, y erely stated that he relied on the petitioners& false representations and was defrauded into partin3 with his one y, causin3 hi daa3e.12 /ince there was no evidence that /tate Resources was fored to defraud the pu blic in 3eneral or that it was used to solicit oney fro other persons aside fro y, then the offense char3ed should only be for siple estafa.'* cralawlawlibrary
evertheless, the C% found that the trial court did not coit 3rave abuse of discretion in issuin3 the warrants of arrest a3ainst the petitioners as there was still probable cause to believe that the petitioners coitted the crie of siple estafa.'1 cralawlawlibrary
$e !etto+
#he petitioners subit that an e9aination of y&s affidavits shows inconsistencies in his cited factual circustances. #hese inconsistencies, accordin3 to the petitioners, ne3ate the e9istence of probable cause a3ainst the for the crie char3ed. #he petitioners also contend that it was only 3o who enticed y to invest his oney. %s early as %u3ust 1225, /tate Resources had already been dissolved, thus ne3 atin3 the assertion that y advanced funds for this corporation.'' #hey
=astly, the petitioners clai that the warrants of arrest issued a3ainst the were null and void. Contrary to the trial court&s findin3s, the C% noted in the body of its decision, that 0 1+)2 was inapplicable to their case. #here was no evidence to show that /tate Resources was fored to solicit funds not only fro y but also fro the 3e neral public. /ince siple estafa and syndicated estafa are two distinct offenses, then the warrants of arrest issued to petitioners were erroneous because these warrants pertained to two d ifferent cries.'4 cralawlawlibrary
$e Co)rt/- R)*+
e resolve to DEN the petition. Procedural Consideration
e note that the present petition
lift warrant of arrest. #his situation is siilar to the procedural issue we addressed in the case of Montoya v. Transed Mani!a Corporation'5 where we faced the
Ander the Constitution'+ and the Revised Rules of Criinal 0rocedure,'8 a @ud3e is andated to per-o+'** eterm+e the e9istence of probable cause after his per-o+'* e'*)'to+ of the prosecutor&s resolution and the supportin3 evidence for the crie char3ed. #hese provisions coand the @ud3e to refrain fro a$in3 a indless ac
:n the present case, the trial court chose to issue warrants of arrest to the petitioners and their co accused. #o be valid, these warrants ust have been issued after copliance with the re
#he records showed that -ud3e Mar
#he nonarrest of all the accused or their refusal to surrender practically resulted in the suspension of arrai3nent e9ceedin3 the si9ty !+*" da ys counted fro the filin3 of coaccused e -oya&s otions, which ay be considered a petition for review, and that of coaccused /pouses Hao&s own petition for review. #his is not to ention the delay in the resolution by the epartent of -ustice. O+ te oter '+, (o6'(()-e De o'/- moto+ to eterm+e prob'b*e (')-e '+ (o6'(()-e Spo)-e- H'o/- moto+ to *t 'rr'+t o 'rre-t 'e bee+ re+ere moot '+ '('em( t te --)'+(e o 'rr'+t- o 'rre-t b t- pre-+ )e 'ter - per-o+'* e9'm+'to+ o te '(t- '+ (r()m-t'+(e- -tro+ e+o) + tem-e*eto -)pport te be*e t't te 're )*t o te (rme t't + '(t 'ppe+e. * ;phasis ours Ander this situation, we conclude that -ud3e Mar
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
:n a criinal prosecution, probable cause is de terined at two sta3es. #he first is at the e9ecutive level, where deterination is ade by the prosecutor durin3 the preliinary investi3ation, before the filin3 of the criinal inforation. #he second is at the @udicial level, underta$en by the @ud3e before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. :n the case at hand, the
'. By eans of any of the followin3 false pretenses or fraudulent acts e9ecuted prior to or siultaneously with the coission of the fraud !a" By usin3 fictitious nae, or falsely pretendin3 to possess power, influence,
Ander this provision, estafa has the followin3 eleents 1" the e9istence of a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent eansE '" the e9ec ution of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent eans prior to or siultaneously with the coission of the fraudE " the reliance by the offended party on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent eans, which induced hi to part with his oney or propertyE and 4" as a result, the offended party suffered daa3e.1 cralawlawlibrary
%s y alle3ed in his coplaintaffidavit, 3o and Gracia induced hi to invest with /tate Resources and proised hi a hi3her rate of return.' Because of his 3ood business relationship with 3o and relyin3 on Gracia&s attractive financial representations, y initially invested the appro9iate aount of 01*,***,***.**. #his first investent earned profits. #hus, y was enticed by Gracia to invest ore so that he eventually advanced alost 01**,***,***.** with /tate Resources. Gracia&s succeedin3 chec$s representin3 the earnin3s of his investents, however, were all dishonored upon deposit.4 He subse
#hese cited factual circustances show the eleents of estafa by eans of deceit. #he petitioners induced y to invest in /tate Resources proisin3 hi3her returns. But un$nown to y, what occurred was erely a ruse to secure his oney to be used in anny&s construction and realty business. #he petitioners& deceit becae ore blatant when they aditted in their petition that as early as %u3ust 1225, /tate Resources had already been dissolved.8 #his adission stren3thens the conclusion that the petitioners isrepresented facts re3ardin3 theselves and /tate Resources in order to persuade y to part with his oney for investent with an ine9istent corporation. #hese circustances all serve as indicators of the petitioners& deceit. Ieceit is the false representation of a atter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or isleadin3 alle3ations, or by concealent of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another, so that he shall act upon it to his le3al [email protected]) cralawlawlibrary
#hus, had it not been for the petitioners& false representations and proises, y would not have placed his oney in /tate Resources, to his daa3e. #hese alle3ations cannot but lead us to the conclusion that probable cause e9isted as basis to arrest the petitioners for the crie of estafa by eans of deceit.
e now address the issue of whether estafa in this case was coitted throu3h a syndicate. Ander /ection 1 of 0 o. 1+)2,2 there is syndicated estafa if the followin3 eleents are present 1" estafa or other fors of swindlin3 as defined in %rticles 15 and 1+ of the R0C was coittedE '" the estafa or swindlin3 was coitted by a syndicate of five or ore personsE and " the fraud resulted in the isappropriation of oneys contributed by stoc$holders, or ebers of rural ban$s, cooperatives, Isaahan3 nayons,J or farers associations or o )+-o*(te b (orpor'to+-:'--o('to+- rom te e+er'* p)b*( .4* cralawlawlibrary
#he factual circustances of the present case show that the first and second eleents of syndicated estafa are presentE there is probable cause for violation of %rticle 15!'"!a" of the R0C a3ainst the petitioners. Moreover, in y&s suppleental coplaintaffidavit, he alle3ed that the fraud perpetrated a3ainst hi was coitted, not on ly by 3o and the petitioners, but also by the other officers and directors of /tate Resources. #he nuber of the accused who alle3edly participated in defraudin3 y e9ceeded five, thus satisfyin3 the re
:n Peop!e v. Casti!!o and Me"ia,4 we e9plained the distinction between the two $inds of probable cause deterination chanRoblesvirtual=awlibrary
#here are two $inds of deterination of probable cause e9ecutive and @udicial. #he e9ecutive deterination of probable cause is one ade durin3 preliinary investi3ation. It - ' )+(to+ t't proper* pert'+- to te p)b*( pro-e()tor o - e+ ' bro' -(reto+ to eterm+e eter prob'b*e (')-e e9-t- '+ to ('re to-e om e be*ee- to 'e (ommtte te (rme '- e+e b *' '+ t)- -o)* be e* or tr'*. therwise stated, such official has the
Moreover, we note that siple estafa and syndicated estafa are not two entirely different cries. /iple estafa is a crie necessarily included in syndicated estafa. %n offense is necessarily included in another offense when the essential in3redients of the forer constitute or for a part of those constitutin3 the latter.45 cralawlawlibrary
Ander this le3al situation, only a foral aendent of the filed inforation under /ection 14, Rule 11* of the Rules of Court4+ is necessaryE the warrants of arrest issued a3ainst the petitioners should not be nullified since probable cause e9ists for siple estafa. Suspension of Arrainment
Ander /ection 11!c", Rule 11+ of the Rules of Court, an arrai3nent ay be suspended if there is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor pendin3 at either the -, or the ffice of the 0resident. However, such period of suspension -o)* +ot e9(ee -9t ;<0= '(o)+te rom te *+ o te petto+ t te ree+ o(e. %s the petitioners alle3ed, they filed a petition for review with the - on oveber '1, '**. /ince this petition had not been resolved yet, they claied that their arrai3nent should be suspended indefinitely. e ephasi7e that the ri3ht of an accused to have his arrai3nent suspended is not an un
%s the trial court found in its (ebruary '+, '**4 order, the -&s delay in resolvin3 the petitioners& petition for review had already e9ceeded +* days. /ince the suspension of the petitioners& arrai3nent was already beyond the period allowed by the Rules, the petitioners& otion to suspend copletely lac$s any le3al basis. %s a final note, we observe that the resolution of this case had lon3 been delayed because of the petitioners& refusal to subit to the trial court&s @urisdiction and their erroneous invocation of the Rules in their favor. %s there is probable cause for the petitioners& coission of a crie, their arrest and arrai3nent should now ensue so that this case ay properly proceed to trial, where the erits of both the parties& evidence and alle3ations ay be wei3hed. >HERE#ORE, preises considered, we hereby DEN the petition and A##IRM >I$H MODI#ICA$ION the (ebruary '), '**+ decision and -une 1, '**) resolution of the Court of %ppeals in C%G.R. /0 o. )+')2. e hereby order that petitioners Ma. Gracia Hao and anny Hao be char3ed for siple estafa under %rticle 15!'"!a" of the Revised 0enal Code, as aended and be arrai3ned for this char3e. #he warrants of arrest issued stand.
