Case Summary (G.R. No. 150185)
Chronology of Proceedings
• December 29, 1999 – Maruyama files a 15-page affidavit-complaint for estafa with Pasay City Prosecutor.
• March 30, 2000 – Investigating prosecutor finds probable cause; city prosecutor approves resolution and files Information.
• May 15, 2000 – Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-0749; warrant of arrest issued; recommended bail ₱40,000.
• June 15, 2000 – Petitioner posts bail in RTC Quezon City; warrant recalled.
• July 14, 2000 – RTC grants private prosecutor’s ex parte motion for a hold-departure order (HDO).
• July 17–19, 2000 – Petitioner moves for judicial determination of probable cause and to recall HDO; private prosecutor opposes.
• July 21 & July 26, 2000 – Hearings reset on petitioner’s motions and arraignment.
• August 25 & 28, 2000 – RTC denies motions and enters not-guilty plea for petitioner.
• January 31, 2001 – CA partially grants Rule 65 certiorari: lifts HDO but denies challenge to probable cause finding.
• March 6, 2001 – Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied.
• May 27, 2004 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
Constitutional Provision
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 – no warrant without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place and persons to be searched or seized.
Rules of Court
• Rule 112, Sec. 6 & 8 (Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) – personal evaluation by the judge of the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting documents; requirement that an Information be supported by affidavits, counter-affidavits, and other evidence.
• Rule 114, Sec. 26 (effective Dec. 1, 2000) – bail does not bar an accused from challenging the validity of arrest or absence of preliminary investigation, provided objections are raised before plea.
Relevant Jurisprudence
• Lim v. Felix; Roberts, Jr. v. CA; Ho v. People – judge’s duty to personally determine probable cause based on complete preliminary records.
• People v. Red – posting bail under necessity does not waive rights to question arrest.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner waived her right to challenge the existence of probable cause and the validity of the arrest warrant by posting bail and filing affirmative motions.
- Whether the RTC judge gravely abused discretion by issuing a warrant of arrest based solely on the prosecutor’s resolution and the complainant’s affidavit, without reviewing all supporting affidavits, counter-affidavits, and documentary evidence.
- Whether Rule 114, Sec. 26 should have been applied retroactively by the CA to permit the petitioner’s challenge despite her bail posting.
Supreme Court Ruling and Analysis
- Retroactive Application of Rule 114, Sec. 26
– Rule 114, Sec. 26 is curative and retroactive. It restores an accused’s right to challenge illegal arrest or lack of preliminary investigation even after posting bail, provided the challenge is made before plea. - No Waiver by Bail
– The petitioner’s bail posting was necessary to avert arrest and did not manifest an intent to relinquish her right to question probable cause. Her immediate motions for judicial determination of probable cause and to lift the HDO confirm she did not waive those rights. - Judge’s Duty to Conduct Independent Probable Cause Determination
– Under Rule 112, Sec. 6, a trial judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and all suppo
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150185)
Facts and Background
- On December 11, 1998, Cecilia Maruyama entrusted petitioner Teresita Tanghal Okabe (also known as Shiela Okabe) with Japanese Yen 11,410,000 (peso equivalent of ₱3,993,500) for door-to-door delivery from Japan to the Philippines.
- Petitioner allegedly failed to deliver the money as agreed, initially denied receipt, and later returned only US$1,000 through Lorna Tanghal.
- Maruyama executed a 15-page affidavit-complaint against petitioner and Lorna Tanghal for estafa, filed with the Pasay City Office of the City Prosecutor on December 29, 1999.
- Complainant submitted affidavits of witnesses Hermogena Santiago, Wilma Setsu, Marilette G. Izumiya, documentary evidence, and her own counter-affidavit.
Preliminary Investigation and Information
- 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Joselito J. Vibandor conducted preliminary investigation and, in a resolution dated March 30, 2000, found probable cause to charge petitioner with estafa.
- Attached to the resolution were:
• The Information charging petitioner and Maruyama’s affidavit-complaint.
• The city prosecutor’s approval of the resolution and Information, also dated March 30, 2000. - On May 15, 2000, Information was filed before RTC Pasay City, Branch 119 (Judge Pedro de Leon Gutierrez), docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-0749, alleging misappropriation of Japanese Yen 11,410,000 (peso equivalent of ₱3,839,465.00) entrusted by Cecilia Maruyama and Conchita Quicho.
RTC Proceedings and Bail
- May 19, 2000: RTC issued warrant of arrest against petitioner, recommending bail of ₱40,000.
- June 15, 2000: Petitioner posted personal bail bond of ₱40,000 before RTC Quezon City, Branch 79 (Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal), which recalled the warrant.
- June 21, 2000: Approved bail bond transmitted to RTC Pasay City.
- Petitioner obtained certified copies of Information, resolution, and affidavit-complaint from branch clerk.
Petitioner’s Departure and RTC Orders
- June 17 – 28, 2000: Petitioner left Philippines for Japan without court permission; returned June 28.
- July 1 – 12, 2000: Petitioner left again and returned July 12.
- July 14, 2000: RTC set arraignment and pre-trial for July 16, 2000.
- Same day, private prosecutor moved ex parte for a Hold Departure Order (HDO), alleging petitioner’s financial capability and risk of flight. RTC granted HDO, directing Bureau of Immigration to prevent petitioner’s departure.
Petitioner’s Motions Before RTC
- July 17, 2000: Verified motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer proceedings/arraignment, citing omission of supporting affidavits and documents from Information (per Lim v. Felix and Roberts, Jr. rulings).
- July 19, 2000: Urgent motion to lift/recall HDO and allow travel, citing:
• Petitioner’s status as mother of three (two minors in Japan).
• Need to attend children’s graduation and PTA.
• Dependence of minors on petitioner’s income from door-to-door delivery business.
• Potential oppression of custodial rights and children’s education/survival if travel barred. - July 21, 2000: Hearing on motions and arraignment