Case Digest (G.R. No. 150185)
Facts:
Teresita Tanghal Okabe, G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court — is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of part of the Court of Appeals decision dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 certiorari challenge to the August 25 and 28, 2000 orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 119, presided by Hon. Pedro De Leon Gutierrez.The private complainant, Cecilia Maruyama, executed and filed an affidavit-complaint on December 29, 1999, accusing petitioner (also known as Sheila Okabe) and Lorna Tanghal of estafa for allegedly failing to deliver funds entrusted to petitioner in Japan for delivery in the Philippines. After a preliminary investigation, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Joselito J. Vibandor issued a resolution dated March 30, 2000 finding probable cause; the City Prosecutor approved the resolution and the Information was filed in the RTC on May 15, 2000 as Criminal Case No. 00-0749. A warrant of arrest issued May 19, 2000 with a recommended bail of P40,000.
Petitioner posted a personal bail bond on June 15, 2000 approved by an RTC judge in Quezon City, which led to recall of the warrant. Petitioner left and returned to Japan several times in June–July 2000. The trial court set arraignment and pre-trial dates in mid‑July; on July 14, 2000 the private prosecutor moved ex parte for a Hold Departure Order (HDO), which the trial court immediately issued directing the Immigration authorities to prevent petitioner’s departure. Petitioner then filed (a) a verified motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer proceedings/arraignment (July 17, 2000) arguing the investigating prosecutor failed to submit the full preliminary investigation record, and (b) a motion to lift/recall the HDO (July 19, 2000) citing humanitarian and custodial grounds.
After hearings and resets, the trial court denied petitioner’s motions on August 25, 2000, reasoning the judge had personally examined the Information, the affidavit-complaint and the prosecutor’s resolution and found probable cause; the court also held petitioner waived challenge to probable cause by posting bail and by filing motions seeking relief. On August 28, 2000 petitioner refused to enter a plea and the court entered a not guilty plea for her, set pre-trial and initial presentation dates, and maintained the HDO.
Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 60732). On January 31, 2001 the Court of Appeals partially granted relief by setting aside the denial to lift the HDO and permitting petitioner to travel under conditions (including posting a bond double the alleged liability and reporting requirements), but denied relief as to the denial of petitioner’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause and otherwise affirmed the RTC. Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) should govern and that CA erred in applying the preexisting rule of Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan; CA denied reconsideration as Section 26 could not apply retroactively because petitioner posted bail before the rule’s effectivity.
Petitioner filed the present Rule 45 petition asking the Supreme Court to reverse the CA, dismiss Criminal Case No. 00‑07...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to apply Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to petitioner’s challenge (i.e., is Section 26 applicable to pending cases and therefore retroactive)?
- Did petitioner’s posting of a personal bail bond and the filing of motions constitute a waiver of her right to challenge the validity of her arrest and the sufficiency of probable cause?
- Did the RTC judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and denying judicial determination of probable cause by relying solely on the investigating prosecutor’s resolution and the complainant’s affidavit-complaint?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly rely on Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan instea...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)