CASE DIGEST: Hao v. People of the Philippines

 

MA. GRACIA HAO and DANNY HAO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
G.R. No. 183345                |              September 17, 2014

 

FACTS:

Private complainant Manuel Dy y Awiten filed a case for syndicated estafa against petitioners and Victor Ngo.

On the basis of Dy’s complaint and supplemental affidavit, the public prosecutor filed an information for syndicated estafa against the petitioners and their 6 co-accused. Judge Placido Marquez issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners and the other accused. Consequently, petitioners immediately filed a motion to defer arraignment and motion to lift warrant of arrest. In their twin motions, they invoked the absence of probable cause against them and the pendency of their petition for review with the Department of Justice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of warrant of arrest is valid

RULING:

Under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge is mandated to personally determine the existence of probable cause after his personal evaluation of the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence for the crime charged. These provisions command the judge to refrain from making a mindless acquiescence to the prosecutor’s findings and to conduct his own examination of the facts and circumstances presented by both parties.

Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grants the trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal complaint or information. He may: a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; or c) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause.

In the present case, the trial court chose to issue warrants of arrest to the petitioners and their co-accused. To be valid, these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing; he only needs to personally review the prosecutor’s initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial evidence.

The records showed that Judge Marquez made a personal determination of the existence of probable cause to support the issuance of the warrants. The petitioners, in fact, did not present any evidence to controvert this.

In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is determined at two stages. The first is at the executive level, where determination is made by the prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, before the filing of the criminal information. The second is at the judicial level, undertaken by the judge before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.