Title
Okabe vs. Gutierrez
Case
G.R. No. 150185
Decision Date
May 27, 2004
Cecilia Maruyama entrusted funds to Teresita Okabe for delivery, but Okabe failed to deliver and denied receipt. Charged with estafa, Okabe contested probable cause, arrest warrant, and hold departure order. Supreme Court ruled trial court erred in probable cause determination, invalidating arrest warrant and HDO, remanding for proper review.

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.