G.R. No. 150185 - Okabe vs. Gutierrez

On December 29, 1999, Cecilia Maruyama executed a 15-page affidavit-complaint with the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office, accusing petitioner Teresita Tanghal Okabe of estafa for allegedly misappropriating ¥11,410,000 (≈P3,993,500) entrusted to her for delivery to the Philippines.
After preliminary investigation, 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Vibandor issued a resolution dated March 30, 2000 finding probable cause; the City Prosecutor approved the resolution and Information.
The Information was filed on May 15, 2000 in RTC Pasay City, Branch 119, charging Okabe with estafa with abuse of confidence.

Warrant of arrest issued May 19, 2000 with P40,000 bail recommendation. On June 15, 2000, Okabe posted a personal bail bond, which Judge Macapagal approved and recalled the warrant.
Petitioner left for Japan on June 17, returned June 28, left again July 1, returned July 12, without court permission. On July 14, 2000, RTC issued a Hold Departure Order (HDO) upon private prosecutor’s ex parte motion.

July 17, 2000: Verified motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer arraignment—argued that only complainant’s affidavit and prosecutor’s resolution were attached to the Information.
July 19, 2000: Very Urgent Motion to Lift/Recall HDO and/or allow travel to Japan—cited humanitarian grounds and custody rights over minor children.
RTC denied all motions (Aug 25, 2000) and, upon petitioner’s refusal to plead on Aug 28, 2000, entered a not-guilty plea and set pre-trial.

Okabe filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 60732) challenging (a) lack of probable cause, (b) due-process violations, (c) denial of motions, among others.
On January 31, 2001, the CA partially granted relief only as to lifting the HDO (subject to conditions: double bond, travel itineraries, periodic reports, addresses), but denied nullification of the probable-cause finding and dismissal of charges.
Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied (Sept 27, 2001).

In March 2001, petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition seeking reversal of the CA decision and resolution, dismissal of Criminal Case 00-0749 for lack of probable cause, nullification of all proceedings, and damages.

Does posting bail bar Okabe from challenging the legality of her arrest or the absence/irregularity of preliminary investigation?

Did the RTC judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the arrest warrant based solely on the prosecutor’s resolution and private complainant’s affidavit, without reviewing all supporting affidavits, counter-affidavits, other documentary evidence, or transcripts?

Did petitioner’s posting of bail and filing of motions before plea constitute a waiver of her right to assail the finding of probable cause and the arrest warrant?

Should Section 26, Rule 114 (effective December 1, 2000) apply retroactively to cases pending decision, thereby superseding the Cojuangco doctrine that bail waives objections to arrest?