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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184536)

Allegations and Narrative of the Complaint

Respondent Giron alleged that following labor‑related complaints filed in December 2005 against Pacific Consultants International and others (including petitioner), she and her officemate Marcos were subjected to threats and verbal abuse intended to force withdrawal of those complaints. On 17 July 2006, after receiving a call allegedly from counsel’s messenger to meet at Harrison Plaza, Giron and Marcos were followed inside the mall, accosted at the SM Department Store, seized at gunpoint, blindfolded, gagged, taunted and threatened, forced into a black Pajero and detained in a warehouse. They were held and threatened to withdraw the complaint and released around 11:00 p.m. on 18 July 2006 at Susana Heights, Muntinlupa.

Corroboration by Co‑victim and Observations

Leonarda Marcos executed a separate affidavit corroborating Giron’s account. Marcos added that during captivity her blindfold was loosened and she observed petitioner inside one of the vehicles parked near the warehouse, conversing with an abducting individual wearing a bonnet. Both complainants stated that the abductors demanded withdrawal of the complaint against petitioner and threatened them with harm if they proceeded.

Petitioner’s Denials and Evidentiary Challenges

Petitioner categorically denied involvement in the alleged abduction and asserted he neither masterminded nor participated in it, and did not know the alleged abductors. He raised numerous inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complaint and affidavits: delayed knowledge of the underlying labor complaint; failure of the victims to report immediately to police; the choice of a public mall meeting place; the victims’ claimed ability to identify the same black Pajero at two distinct locations; alleged ease of bringing firearms into SM Department Store; the victims’ decision to leave the store to make a phone call despite being followed; alleged hearsay content of kidnappers’ statements; allegedly convenient identification of petitioner by Marcos; and the timing of the filing (two months after the incident) together with continued attendance at work after the incident. Petitioner also asserted an extortion motive by complainants and presented an alibi corroborated by his driver, who stated petitioner was driven home per usual schedule on 17–18 July 2006.

Prosecutorial Action and Initial Dismissal

Senior State Prosecutor Emilie Fe M. De Los Santos dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause in a Resolution dated 5 January 2007. Respondent appealed that dismissal within the Department of Justice. Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales affirmed the Investigating Prosecutor’s dismissal on 11 April 2007, denying the petition for review. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the DOJ was denied, after which she sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals’ Findings and Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 30 June 2008, granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, reversed and set aside the DOJ Resolutions, and ordered the filing of an information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention against petitioner. The appellate court found that the Secretary of Justice and the Investigating Prosecutor had effectively demanded more than the limited sampling of evidence appropriate to a preliminary investigation, applied standards appropriate to a full trial, and thereby usurped the functions of the court. The CA concluded the prosecutor overstepped by weighing and rejecting evidence in a manner akin to adjudication on the merits rather than the determination of probable cause.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeals’ rulings on three principal grounds: (I) that the CA committed grievous error in reversing the Secretary of Justice’s finding of no probable cause; (II) that the CA erred in granting respondent’s petition for certiorari when it raised factual questions and was unmeritorious; and (III) that certiorari was not the proper mode of appeal from DOJ rulings.

Legal Standard: Probable Cause and Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion

The Court reiterated the settled standard: probable cause exists when facts and circumstances within the prosecutor’s knowledge would lead a person of ordinary prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that the accused probably committed the offense charged. Probable cause does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt or certainty; it is a practical, common‑sense determination. Prosecutorial decisions to dismiss or to file information are generally discretionary and entitled to deference; courts will not review such preliminary determinations unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A Rule 65 certiorari is the appropriate remedy when such grave abuse is alleged and shown.

Elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267 RPC) and Their Alleged Presence

Under Article 267, the elements are: (1) offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps, detains or otherwise deprives another of liberty; (3) the detention is illegal; and (4) one or more special circumstances obtain (detention over three days; simulation of public authority; infliction of serious physical injury or threats to kill; or the detained person is a minor, female or public officer). The Court observed that the complaint‑affidavit and supporting statements sufficiently alleged these elements for purposes of prelim

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184536)

Case Caption, Court and Decision

G.R. No. 184536; Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Decision penned by Justice Perez; docketed at 716 Phil. 364; dated August 14, 2013.
The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 June 2008 and Resolution dated 18 September 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 100091, which had reversed and set aside Department of Justice Resolutions dismissing respondent Leila F. Giron's complaint for kidnapping and serious illegal detention against petitioner Masayuki Hasegawa.

Procedural History

16 September 2006: Respondent filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner and several John Does.
5 January 2007: Senior State Prosecutor Emilie Fe M. De Los Santos dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause (Resolution).
11 April 2007: Then Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales dismissed respondent's Petition for Review of the prosecutorial dismissal; respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the DOJ.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
30 June 2008: Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the DOJ Resolutions, and ordered the filing of an Information for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner.
18 September 2008: Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Resolution).
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was initially denied but later given due course upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner.
14 August 2013: Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.

Factual Background (as alleged by Respondent)

Respondent alleged that in December 2005 she and her officemate, Leonarda Marcos, filed a complaint against their employer and certain individuals, among them petitioner, for illegal salary deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and non-remittance of SSS contributions.
Respondent alleged that since filing that complaint they were subjected to threats and verbal abuse by petitioner to pressure withdrawal of the complaint; respondent had also filed separate complaints for grave threats, grave coercion, slander and unjust vexation against petitioner, pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City.
17 July 2006: Respondent received a call from an alleged messenger of her counsel requesting a meeting at Harrison Plaza Mall; respondent and Marcos proceeded to the mall together.
While en route, they noticed a black Pajero parked in front of the Package B Building inside the LRTA compound where they worked.
Inside SM Department Store at Harrison Plaza Mall, respondent and Marcos noticed two men following them; respondent called a close friend to report the incident.
After exiting the department store and standing near food stalls to make another call, respondent alleges a man pushed a gun against her right side, causing panic; respondent and Marcos were taken at gunpoint and forced into a black Pajero.
While in the vehicle they were blindfolded and gagged, taunted and repeatedly threatened to withdraw their complaint against petitioner.
Respondent stated that when her blindfold was loosened she observed they were parked inside a warehouse with concrete walls and high roof and saw four vehicles parked outside; she observed three men wearing bonnets over their faces—one beside her, one seated in front, and one standing near the parked vehicles.
Before release, a man threatened that if they continued the case against Hasegawa they "may have a place to be put," "no one would report to the police," and that if they approached authorities they would be "returned" (quote as in source).
Release occurred at around 11:00 p.m. on 18 July 2006; they were dropped off in Susana Heights in Muntinlupa.

Corroboration and Additional Statements

Leonarda Marcos executed a separate Affidavit corroborating respondent’s account and added that while in captivity her blindfold was loosened and she was able to see petitioner inside one of the vehicles parked nearby, talking to one of the abductors who wore a bonnet.
Petitioner filed a Counter-Affidavit denying involvement, stating he was not the abductor or a participant, did not know the alleged kidnappers, and was not present in any vehicle talking to abductors.
Petitioner’s personal driver, Edamar Valentino, submitted a statement corroborating petitioner’s alibi that on 17 and 18 July 2006 he drove petitioner at 7:30 a.m. and brought him home after work as usual.

Petitioner's Enumerated Grounds of Error to the Supreme Court

I. Alleged grievous error by the Court of Appeals in reversing the Secretary of Justice’s finding that no probable cause exists.
II. Alleged grievous error in granting respondent's petition for certiorari despite raising questions of fact and being unmeritorious.
III. Alleged grievous error in ruling that certiorari was the proper mode of appeal from judgments of the Secretary of Justice.
Petitioner argued the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion, that the DOJ adequately explained lack of probable cause, that the appellate court usurped the role of the prosecutor by engaging in trial-like factfinding, that the kidnapping charge formed part of a sequence of cases filed by respondent and dismissed by administrative and lower courts, and that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies and used the wrong mode of appeal.

Investigating Prosecutor’s Reasons for Dismissal (as set out in the record)

The Investigating Pr
...continue reading