Title
Aguinaldo vs. Ventus
Case
G.R. No. 176033
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2015
Petitioners accused of estafa for misrepresenting vehicle ownership; case reinstated improperly by non-party, but arraignment suspension and preliminary investigation upheld as valid.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 176033)

Facts:

Parties Involved:
Petitioners: Felilibeth Aguinaldo and Benjamin Perez
Respondents: Reynaldo P. Ventus and Jojo B. Joson

Background of the Case:
Private respondents Ventus and Joson filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa against petitioners Aguinaldo and Perez, alleging that petitioners connived to defraud them of P260,000 in March and April 2002. The petitioners misrepresented ownership of two motor vehicles, which were later found to be owned by Levita De Castro, manager of LEDC Rent-A-Car.

Procedural History:

  1. On December 2, 2002, private respondents filed the Complaint-Affidavit.
  2. On January 15, 2003, Perez filed a Counter-Affidavit denying his involvement, claiming he only introduced Aguinaldo to the respondents.
  3. On January 22, 2003, private respondents filed a Reply-Affidavit asserting that Perez showed them photocopies of the vehicle registration papers under Aguinaldo’s name.
  4. On January 29, 2003, Perez filed a Rejoinder-Affidavit stating that private respondents were aware the vehicles were leased.
  5. On February 25, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Renato F. Gonzaga recommended indictment for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
  6. On July 16, 2003, an Information for estafa was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
  7. On July 31, 2003, Perez was arrested, and petitioners filed motions to recall or quash the arrest warrants.
  8. On August 4, 2003, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for the Withdrawal of the Information.
  9. On August 6, 2003, the RTC granted the motion for withdrawal of information for Aguinaldo pending resolution of her motion for reconsideration.
  10. On December 23, 2003, the case was archived pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
  11. On February 27, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
  12. On May 16, 2005, the RTC reinstated the case and issued a warrant for Aguinaldo’s arrest based on a DOJ resolution in a different case.
  13. On August 23, 2005, the RTC denied petitioners’ motion to quash the arrest warrant and set the arraignment.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Motion to Reinstate the Case and Issue a Warrant of Arrest was validly filed by Levita De Castro, who was not a party to the case.
  2. Whether the suspension of arraignment beyond the 60-day period under Rule 116, Section 11 of the Rules of Court was justified.
  3. Whether the preliminary investigation was prematurely concluded, depriving petitioners of their right to due process.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.