Case Digest (G.R. No. 183345)
Facts:
Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny Hao v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183345, April 13, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Private complainant Manuel Dy y Awiten (Dy) filed a criminal complaint on July 11, 2003 for syndicated estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689, naming petitioners Ma. Gracia Hao (also known as Mina Tan Hao), Danny Hao, and Victor Ngo, among others. Dy alleged that Ngo, then manager of Asiatrust Bank, introduced him to Gracia and State Resources Development Corporation (State Resources) as an investment vehicle; Dy invested initially about P10,000,000 and later nearly P100,000,000 by checks payable to State Resources, while Gracia issued checks totaling P114,286,086.14 that were dishonored when deposited. Dy later learned funds were diverted to Danny Hao’s construction and realty business and that State Resources had in fact been dissolved earlier.
On the basis of Dy’s complaint and a supplemental affidavit adding several incorporators and directors of State Resources, the public prosecutor filed an information (Criminal Case No. 03-219952) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40. Judge Placido Marquez personally examined the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting papers and issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners and their co-accused.
The petitioners immediately filed a motion to defer arraignment and a motion to lift warrant of arrest, arguing lack of probable cause and asserting the pendency of their petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) (filed November 21, 2003). The RTC denied both motions in orders dated February 26, 2004 and July 26, 2004. Petitioners elevated the denial by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86289. The CA, in a decision dated February 28, 2006 (and resolution June 13, 2008), affirmed the RTC: it found the RTC judge personally determined probable cause and thus committed no grave abuse of discretion, but opined the facts supported probable cause only for simple estafa rather than syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA rulin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly determine whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to defer arraignment and to lift the warrants of arrest?
- Was there probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners for syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689, or at least for simple estafa under Article 315(2)(a) RPC?
- Was the suspension of petitioners’ arraignment properly extended by the pendency of their petition for review with the DOJ be...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)