G.R. No. 183345 - Hao vs. People

On July 11, 2003, Manuel Dy filed a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to PD No. 1689, against Ma. Gracia Hao, Danny Hao, Victor Ngo, and later five incorporators/directors of State Resources Development Corporation.
Dy invested an initial ₱10 million and subsequently nearly ₱100 million upon the advice of Ngo (Asiatrust Bank manager) and representations by Gracia. Gracia issued checks totaling ₱114,286,086.14 as purported returns, all of which were dishonored. Dy discovered his funds had been diverted to Danny’s construction and realty business; despite repeated promises, the petitioners never refunded his money.

RTC Branch 40 of Manila issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion to defer arraignment and a motion to lift the warrants, claiming lack of probable cause and invoking a pending petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The trial court denied both motions in its February 26, 2004 order and denied reconsideration on July 26, 2004. Petitioners then filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA).

In a February 28, 2006 decision (resolved June 13, 2008), the CA affirmed the RTC, finding that Judge Marquez personally evaluated the prosecutor’s resolution and evidence, and that there was no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrants.
The CA held that the record showed probable cause for simple estafa only, not syndicated estafa, because there was no evidence of public or group solicitation by State Resources.

Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motions to defer arraignment and lift warrants of arrest.
Whether probable cause existed for the issuance of warrants of arrest for syndicated estafa, or at least for simple estafa.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to an indefinite suspension of arraignment pending resolution of their DOJ petition beyond 60 days.