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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184536)

Background and Filing of Complaint

Respondent Leila F. Giron filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated September 16, 2006, accusing petitioner Masayuki Hasegawa of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The complaint was linked to a prior labor dispute involving illegal salary deductions, non-payment of benefits, and non-remittance of SSS contributions filed by Giron and her officemate Leonarda Marcos against their employer and petitioner. Giron alleged threats and verbal abuse from petitioner urging them to withdraw the complaint, leading her to also file separate complaints for grave threats, grave coercion, slander, and unjust vexation, all pending in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.

Description of the Alleged Kidnapping Incident

On July 17, 2006, respondent received a call purportedly from her counsel’s messenger asking for a meeting at Harrison Plaza Mall. Accompanied by Marcos, respondent observed suspicious behavior including a black Pajero vehicle parked near their workplace and being followed by two men inside the mall. Respondent was forcibly taken at gunpoint along with Marcos, blindfolded, gagged, threatened to withdraw the complaint, and held in a warehouse-like location for about 24 hours before being released at Susana Heights, Muntinlupa. Marcos corroborated Giron's account, adding that she saw petitioner conversing with one of the masked abductors.

Petitioner’s Denial and Arguments

Petitioner categorically denied involvement or knowledge of the kidnapping. He questioned the credibility of the complaint highlighting inconsistencies and improbabilities such as the timing of knowledge about the complaint, delay in reporting to the police, questionable behavior of the complainants, and alleged hearsay statements attributed to the kidnappers. Petitioner also suggested that the complaints were attempts at extortion following failed settlement negotiations in various related cases. His driver’s testimony supported his alibi that petitioner maintained his regular schedule during the alleged incident.

Initial Dismissal by the Department of Justice (DOJ)

On January 5, 2007, Senior State Prosecutor Emilie Fe M. De Los Santos dismissed the complaint due to lack of probable cause. The Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales affirmed the dismissal on April 11, 2007. The DOJ found no basis to overturn the findings, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence to support the complaint.

Court of Appeals’ Review and Reversal

Respondent Giron filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on June 30, 2008, reversed the DOJ’s dismissal. The CA found that the Secretary of Justice and the prosecutor had overstepped their roles by demanding trial-level evidence during the preliminary investigation, which is unnecessary and inappropriate at that stage. The CA emphasized that probable cause requires only a reasonable belief, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and criticized the DOJ for applying overly stringent standards more suitable for trial. The motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied by the CA on September 18, 2008.

Grounds of the Petition for Review to the Supreme Court

Petitioner contended that the CA erroneously reversed the DOJ’s finding of no probable cause, improperly entertained a certiorari petition that raised factual questions, and erred in ruling the mode of appeal. He argued the DOJ’s dismissal was supported by ample reasoning and that review of evidence was beyond the scope of a certiorari proceeding. Petitioner also pointed to respondent’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and claimed the complaint was part of an extortion scheme.

Respondent’s Opposition and Legal Standards on Probable Cause

Respondent insisted that the preliminary investigation stage does not require full presentation of evidence, only a reasonable suspicion that the crime may have been committed. She underscored that judicial review of DOJ resolutions is proper under certiorari when grave abuse of discretion is apparent. She cited jurisprudence emphasizing that courts generally defer to prosecutorial discretion unless there is a clear and arbitrary abuse amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Probable Cause and Preliminary Investigation

The Court reviewed the nature of probable cause, defining it as facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed and that the accused is probably guilty. It requires no proof beyond reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence.

The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were examined:

The offender is a private individual;
He kidnapped or detained another or deprived him of liberty;
The detention or kidnapping was illegal; and
Aggravating circumstances (more than 3 days of detention, simulation of public authority, serious physical injuries or threats, or victim is minor, female, or public officer).

The Court found that these elements were sufficiently alleged in the complaint-affidavit and that the details provided created a reasonable suspicion that the crime might have been committed by petitioner.

Evaluation of the Investigating Prosecutor’s and DOJ’s Findings

The Court noted that the Investigating Prosecutor had set an unduly high standard by requiring prima facie evidence more suited for trial and by delving into evidentiary matters inappropriate at the preliminary investigation stage. The prosecutor’s skepticism was based largely on

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184536)

Case Background and Procedural History

On December 2005, respondent Leila F. Giron and her officemate Leonarda Marcos filed complaints against their employer and petitioner Masayuki Hasegawa for illegal salary deductions, non-payment of the 13th month pay, and non-remittance of SSS contributions.
Since the filing, Giron alleged receiving threats and verbal abuse from Hasegawa aimed at forcing them to withdraw their complaints.
Giron also filed separate complaints including grave threats, grave coercion, slander, and unjust vexation against Hasegawa; these remained pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City.
On 16 September 2006, Giron filed a Complaint-Affidavit for kidnapping and serious illegal detention against Hasegawa and unidentified others (John Does).
The complaint narrated an alleged abduction on 17 July 2006 at Harrison Plaza Mall, where Giron and Marcos were followed, forcibly taken at gunpoint, blindfolded, gagged, and detained with threats to withdraw the earlier complaints.
Marcos corroborated Giron's account, including an observation of petitioner conversing with one of the kidnappers while disguised in bonnets.
Petitioner denied involvement, presence at the scene, or knowledge of the alleged kidnappers, asserting that the accusations were fabricated and motivated by extortion attempts after failed settlement talks.
Petitioner’s personal driver testified that petitioner was with him at work during the alleged time of the incident.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed Giron's complaint for lack of probable cause on 5 January 2007.
Giron appealed the dismissal, which was denied by then-Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales on 11 April 2007.
She later filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On 30 June 2008, the CA reversed the DOJ’s dismissal, ordered the filing of charges against Hasegawa, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 18 September 2008.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts Surrounding the Alleged Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

Respondent and Marcos were allegedly lured through a messenger requesting a meeting at Harrison Plaza Mall.
While going to the mall, the two noticed a distinct black Pajero car parked in their workplace’s compound.
At the mall, respondent and Marcos were followed by two men; respondent immediately contacted a close friend by phone.
Outside a department store, Giron felt a gun pressed against her body; both were forcibly taken into the black Pajero, gagged, and blindfolded.
Detained in a warehouse, they faced threats to withdraw their complaints against petitioner, with warnings of harm if they persisted.
They were released after approximately 24 hours, dropped off at Susana Heights in Muntinlupa.
Marcos corroborated respondent’s narrative and added that she observed petitioner inside a vehicle conversing with one of the kidnappers.
Respondent and Marcos' post-release behavior included continuing work at the LRTA compound despite proximity to the alleged mastermind.

Petitioner’s Denial and Counter-Allegations

Petitioner explicitly denied involvement in the kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
Argued that he only learned of the complaints in May 2006, contradicting claims of earlier warnings against Giron and Marcos.
Viewed the charges as a form of blackmail following failed efforts to settle civil claims at labor and immigration tribunals.
Highlighted inconsistencies in the complaint:
- The timing and knowledge of the complaint versus alleged prior threats.
- Failure of Giron and Marcos
...continue reading