RULE 112 SEC 6 CRIMPRO

MA. GRACIA HAO & DANNY HAO v RTC JUDGE MARQUEZ ISSUED WARRANTS OF
ARREST
PEOPLE Judge Marquez issued warrants of arrest against
GR No. 183345 | 17 September 2014 | Brion, J. Danny and Garcia and all other accused (i.e
WHEN WARRANT MAY ISSUE incorporators of State Resources)
Pwede ba mag issue ng warrant for simple estafa if ang
charge ay syndicated estafa? SPOUSES HAO FILED A MOTION TO DEFER
ARRAIGNMENT AND LIFT WARRANTS
KIND OF APPEAL Spouses Hao filed a motion to defer arraignment and
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed by motion to lift warrant of arrest. Their twin motions
Ma. Gracia and Danny Hao, seeking reversal of CA invoke that the absence of probable cause against
decision and resolution. the petitioners and the pendency of their petition for
review with the DOJ are sufficient grounds.
FACTS
MANUEL DY FILED A CASE AGAINST SPOUSES, TRIAL COURT & CA DENIED THE TWIN MOTIONS
VICTOR NGO FOR SYNDICATED ESTAFA Trial court denied the twin motions. CA affirmed the
Manuel Dy filed a criminal complaint against Ma.Gracia denial of the petitioners’ motion to defer arraignment
& Danny Hao, and Victor Ngo for syndicated estafa. and motion to lift warrant of arrest.

DY ALLEGED THAT HE WAS INDUCED BY DECEIT TO CA RULED THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE THAT
INVEST MONEY TO STATE RESOURCES COMPANY PETITIONER COMMITTED THE CRIME OF SIMPLE
Dy alleged that he was a long-time client of Asia Trust ESTAFA
Bank, where Ngo was the manager, when Ngo advised In determining probable cause for issuance of warrant of
him to deposit his money in an investment house that arrest, a judge is mandated to personally evaluate the
will give ha higher rate of return. resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
The CA noted that Judge Marquez only issued the warrants
Ngo introduced Dy to Ma. Gracia Hao, who presented after his personal examination of the facts and
herself as officer of various reputable companies and circumstances of the case. Since the judge complied with
the Rules, there was no grave abuse of discretion.
incorporator of State Resources, the company
recommended which could give Dy his higher CA however opined that the evidence and the assertions
investment return. in Dy’s affidavit only show probable cause for the crime
of simple estafa, not syndicated estafa.
Dy initially invested P10M. The initial investment
earned the promised interest, which induced Dy to For syndicated estafa to exist, the fraud must be against the
increase his investment. Gracia also issued several general public or at least a group of persons.
checks to Dy representing his earning for his
investment totalling P114,286,086. However, all the In Dy’s complaint-affidavit, Dy merely stated that he relied on
Gracia and Ngo’s false representations and was defrauded
checks were dishonored when Dy deposited them. causing him to lose money. There was no evidence that State
Resources was formed to defraud the public in general or at
DY ASKED NGO’S ASSISTANCE TO HELP HIM least it was used to solicit money from other persons aside
RECOVER HIS MONEY, NGO ABSCONDED from Dy. Thus, the offense charged should only be for simple
Dy sought Ngo’s assistance for the recover of the estafa.
amount of dishonored checks, but found out that Ngo
has resigned from the bank and could no longer be CA, nevertheless, found that the trial court did not
located. commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing warrants of
arrest as there was still probable cause to believe that
petitioner committed the crime of simple estafa.
WORSE, DY DISCOVERED THAT SPOUSES HAO USED
HIS MONEY FOR DANNY HAO’S BUSINESS
Further, Dy discovered that Gracia invested his money PETITIONERS’ APPEAL BEFORE THE SC
in the construction business of her husband, Danny. Petitioners claim that the warrants of arrest issued
Despite promises to pay, the spouses never returned against them were null and void. Since simple estafa
Dy’s money. and syndicated estafa are two distinct offenses, the
warrants of arrest issued to petitioner were erroneous
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FILED AN INFORMATION FOR because there warrants pertained to two different
SYNDICATED ESTAFA crimes.
On the basis of the complaint, the public prosecutor
filed an information for syndicated estafa against ISSUE
Danny and Garcia. The case was raffled to RTC of W/N the warrants of arrest issued for syndicated
Manila, Branch 40. estafa are valid on the ground that the finding only
resulted to simple estafa and not the crime charged
against them? [YES]
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
RULE 112 SEC 6 CRIMPRO
banks, cooperative, samahang nayon, or farmers
HELD. Petition denied. association or of funds solicited by corporations or
JUDGE’S DUTY TO PERSONALLY DETERMINE associations from the general public.
PROBABLE CAUSE
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and the The first and second elements1 were present in this
Constitution, a judge is mandated to personally case. However, the third element of the crime is lacking.
determine the existence of probable cause after his There is no evidence to show that aside from Dy,
personal evaluation of the prosecutor’s resolution and Spouses Hao sought investments from other people. Dy
the supporting evidence for the crime charged. The had no co-complainants. The general public element
provisions command the judge to refrain from making a was not complied with. Thus, no syndicated estafa took
mindless acquiescence to the prosecutor’s findings and place, only simple estafa by means of deceit.
to conduct his own examination of the facts and
circumstances presented by the parties. FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SIMPLE ESTAFA,
CORRECT
REMEDIES OF A JUDGE UPON FILING OF With the Court’s conclusion that probable cause
INFORMATION existed for the crime of simple estafa and that
Trial court, upon filing of the criminal complaint or Spouses Hao probably committed it, it follows that the
information is given three options: issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioner
1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly remains to be valid and proper. To allow them to go
failed to establish probable cause scot-free would defeat rather than promote the
2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause purpose of warrant of arrest, which is to put the
3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence accused in the court’s custody to avoid his flight from
within 5 days from notice in case of doubt on the the clutches of justice .
existence of probable cause
SIMPLE ESTAFA IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN
In the present case, trial court chose to issue warrants SYNDICATED ESTAFA
of arrest to petitioner. To be valid, these warrants must Simple estafa and syndicated estafa are not two entirely
have been issued after compliance with the different crimes. Simple estafa is a crime necessarily
requirement that probable cause be personally included in syndicated estafa. An offense is necessarily
determined by the judge. Note that was is to be included in another offense when the essential
determined is the probability, not the certainty of elements of former constitute or form a part of those
guilt of the accused. He need not conduct a hearing constituting the latter.
but only needs to review the prosecutor’s initial
determination and see if it is supported by substantial REMEDY IS TO AMEND THE INFORMATION
evidence. Under this situation, only a formal amendment of the
filed information under Section 14, Rule 110 is
DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL necessary; the warrants of arrest issued against the
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE petitioner should not be nullified since probable cause
Probable cause is determined at two stages, in criminal exists for simple estafa.
prosecution. First is at the executive level, where
determination is made by the prosecutor during the
preliminary investigation, before filing of criminal
information. Second, is at the judicial level, undertaken
by the judge before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE

ELEMENTS OF SYNDICATED ESTAFA 1 first element of estafa committed was established to be present
To convict an accused for syndicated estafa the by the facts that Dy was enticed by Gracia to invest; and after his
elements initial deposit, Gracia gave him succeeding checks representing
the earnings of his investments, but were all dishonored. Gracia
1) estafa was committed induced Dy to invest in State Resources promising higher returns,
4) it was committed by a syndicate or five or more but unknown to Dy what occured was merely a ruse to secure his
persons money to be used in Danny Hao’s construction business. second
5) fraud resulted in the misappropriation of moneys element was established since it was not only the Spouses and
Ngo which allegedly committed the crime but all other officers and
contributed by stockholders, or member of rural directors of State Resources.
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE