G.R. No. 184536 - Hasegawa vs. Giron

On 16 September 2006, respondent Leila F. Giron filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner Masayuki Hasegawa and several John Does.
The complaint stemmed from prior labor-related complaints that respondent and her officemate, Leonarda Marcos, filed in December 2005 against their employer Pacific Consultants International and others, including petitioner, for illegal salary deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and non-remittance of SSS contributions.
Since filing the labor complaints, respondent alleged that petitioner threatened and verbally abused them to force withdrawal of the complaints; additional complaints for grave threats, grave coercion, slander, and unjust vexation were also filed and pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City.

On 17 July 2006, respondent received a call from someone claiming to be a messenger of her counsel, requesting a meeting at Harrison Plaza Mall, Manila. Respondent asked Marcos to accompany her.
On the way to the mall, they noticed a black Pajero parked inside the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) compound where they both worked. At the mall, while shopping inside SM Department Store, respondent and Marcos noticed two men following them.
Respondent called a close friend to report the incident. After going outside the department store, respondent felt a gun pressed against her right side. Both women were forcibly abducted at gunpoint, blindfolded, gagged, and pushed inside the same black Pajero.
While inside the vehicle, they were threatened to withdraw their cases against petitioner; their blindfolds were loosened, allowing respondent to see that the vehicle was parked inside a warehouse with concrete walls and several parked vehicles outside. They observed three men with bonnets covering their faces.
Before release, the abductors threatened them again with harm should they continue their complaints. They were released around 11:00 p.m. of 18 July 2006 at Susana Heights, Muntinlupa.

Marcos corroborated the account of kidnapping and observed petitioner inside one of the parked vehicles, speaking to one of the abductors.
Petitioner categorically denied involvement. He claimed no knowledge of alleged kidnappers or presence at the scene and contested the veracity and consistency of the complaint with several points:

Petitioner learned about the complaint only on 8 May 2006, contradicting claims of prior threats.
No immediate police report was filed post-release.
Unusual circumstances regarding the supposed messenger, recognition of the black Pajero, abductors entering a department store with guns, and inconsistent mobile phone activity inside the vehicle.
Respondent and Marcos continued working at the LRTA compound after the incident.

Petitioner alleged that the complaint was a scheme to extort money due to failed settlement negotiations involving other cases.

Petitioner’s personal driver testified that petitioner was with him during the alleged kidnapping dates and times.
On 5 January 2007, the Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause.
Respondent appealed to the DOJ Secretary who denied the appeal on 11 April 2007.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On 30 June 2008, the CA reversed the DOJ's dismissal, found probable cause, and ordered filing of information against petitioner.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 18 September 2008.

The CA erred in reversing DOJ’s finding of no probable cause.
The petition for certiorari was improper and raised factual questions.
The CA erred in ruling that certiorari was proper mode of appeal from DOJ judgments.

Petitioner emphasized the absence of grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ and criticized CA’s detailed review of evidence as improper in a certiorari proceeding.
Respondent responded that preliminary investigation is not a full trial; only probable cause to believe the offense was committed is needed to prosecute.
Respondent maintained that the CA did not err in granting certiorari because the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Secretary of Justice’s finding of no probable cause.
Whether the petition for certiorari was an improper mode of appeal raising questions of fact.
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause.