Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ventus
G.R. No. 176033 | 752 SCRA 461 | March 11, 2015 | Peralta, J.
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of CA
Petitioners: FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and Benjamin Perez
Respondents: Reynaldo Ventus and Jojo Joson
FACTS
1. On Dec 2002, Ventus and Joson filed a Complaint for estafa against
petitioners before the OCP of Manila
a. both parties were business partners in financing casino players
b. sometime in March and April 2002, petitioners connived in
convincing them to part with their 260,000 in consideration of a
pledge of 2 motor vehicles
i. the motor vehicles were misrepresented by the
petitioners to be owned by Aguinaldo, but turned out to
be owned by Levita de Castro, manager/operator of
LEDC Rent A Car.
2. Perez denied accusation against him and claimed that his only
participation in the transaction between respondents and Aguinaldo was
limited to having initially introduced them to each other.
a. respondents: Perez was the one who showed them photocopies
of the registration paper of the motor vehicles in the name of
Aguinaldo, as well as the one who personally took them out from
the rent-a-car company
3. Asst City Prosecutor issued a Resolution recommending petitioners to be
indicted for estafa
4. An information for estafa was filed with RTC.
5. Perez was arrested
a. Perez filed an Urgent Motion for Reduction of Bail to be posted in
cash granted
b. filed Very Urgent Motion to Recall or Quash Warrants of Arrest
6. Petitioners filed with OCP their:
a. Motion for Reconsideration and
b. Motion for Withdrawal of Information Prematurely filed with the
RTC
c. claim: no deceit or false pretenses was committed because
respondents were fully aware that she does not own the pledged
motor vehicles
7. Public respondent granted motion for withdrawal of information and
directing recall of arrest warrant only insofar as Aguinaldo is concerned,
pending resolution of her MR with the OCP
8. Petitioners filed Urgent Motion for Cancellation of Arraignment, pending
resolution of the MR filed with OCP
a. public respondent ordered arraignment to be deferred until
resolution of petitioners MR
b. ordered case archived pending resolution of petitioners MR
ISSUES
1. W/N De Castro was a proper party No
2. W/N the provision of Sec 11, Rule 116 is merely directory No
3. W/N filing of the information and issuance of warrant of arrest put
petitioners at risk of incarceration without preliminary investigation having
been completed NO
NOTES
1. If there is a pending motion for reconsideration or motion for
reinvestigation of the resolution of the public prosecutor, the court
may suspend the proceedings upon motion by the parties. However,
the court should set the arraignment of the accused and direct the
public prosecutor to submit the resolution disposing of the motion on
or before the period fixed by the court, which in no instance could be
more than the period fixed by the court counted from the granting of
the motion to suspend arraignment, otherwise the court will proceed
with the arraignment as scheduled and without further delay.
2. If there is a pending petition for review before the DOJ, the court may
suspend the proceedings upon motion by the parties. However, the
court should set the arraignment of the accused and direct the DOJ
to submit the resolution disposing of the petition on or before the
period fixed by the Rules which, in no instance, could be more than
sixty (60) days from the filing of the Petition for Review before the
DOJ, otherwise, the court will proceed with the arraignment as
scheduled and without further delay.
DISPOSITION
Page 2 of 2