Okabe v gutierrez

FACTS: Cecilia Maruyama filed a complaint charging Lorna Tanghal and

petitioner Teresita Tanghal Okabe, a.k.a. Shiela Okabe, with estafa.
Maruyama alleged, that on December 11, 1998, she entrusted
Y11,410,000 with the peso equivalent of P3,993,500 to the petitioner,
who was engaged in the business of "door-to-door delivery" from Japan
to the Philippines. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to deliver the
money as agreed upon, and, at first, denied receiving the said amount
but later returned only US$1,000 through Lorna Tanghal.
During the preliminary investigation, the complainant submitted the
affidavit of her witnesses and other documentary evidence. After the
requisite preliminary investigation, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Joselito J. Vibandor came out with a resolution, finding probable cause
for estafa against the petitioner w/c was subsequently approved by the
city prosecutor. The trial court then issued a warrant of arrest with a
recommended bond of P40,000. Petitioner posted a personal bail bond
in the said amount. The petitioner left the Philippines for Japan on June
17, 2000 without the trial courts permission, and returned to the
Philippines on June 28, 2000. She left the Philippines anew on July 1,
2000, and returned on July 12, 2000. On July 14, 2000, the private
prosecutor filed an urgent ex parte motion for the issuance of the hold
departure order. Trial court approved the same. Meanwhile, the
petitioner filed a verified motion for judicial determination of probable
cause and to defer proceedings/arraignment, alleging that the only
documents appended to the Information submitted by the investigating
prosecutor were respondent Maruyamas affidavit-complaint for estafa
and the resolution of the investigating prosecutor; the affidavits of the
witnesses of the complainant, the respondents counter-affidavit and
the other evidence adduced by the parties were not attached thereto.
On July 19, 2000, the petitioner also filed a Very Urgent Motion To
Lift/Recall Hold Departure Order dated July 17, 2000 and/or allow her to
regularly travel to Japan for the reason that she have 3 minor children
residing there relying on her for support. Petitioner also questioned the
irregularity of the determination of probable cause during the
preliminary investigation however the respondent judge ruled that the
posting of bail and the filing motions for relief estopped the petitioner
from questioning the same. Upon arraignment, petitioner refused to
enter a plea and w/ leave of court left the court room. Petitioner filed
w/ CA a petition for Certiorari. CA set aside the hold departure order
however all the other motions were denied, hence this case.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge committed a reversible error in

determining existence of probable cause despite lack of affidavits of
the witnesses of respondent Maruyama and the latters documentary
evidence, as well as the counter-affidavit of the petitioner.
HELD: Yes, the rulings of this Court are now embedded in Section 8(a),
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides
that:
SEC. 8. Records. (a) Records supporting the information or complaint.
An information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the
affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses,
together with the other supporting evidence and the resolution on the
case. The respondent judge is hereby DIRECTED to determine the
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the
petitioner based on the complete records, as required under Section
8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.