OKABE vs. HON.
GUTIERREZ, Presiding Judge of RTC Pasay, Okabe further asserts that the CA erred in holding that by posting bail and praying for relief, she
PEOPLE, AND MARUYAMA
J. Callejo, Sr. | May 27, 2004
TOPIC: DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE
FACTS
Cecilia Maruyama filed a complaint with the Pasay City Prosecutor on Dec. 29, 1999 charging
Teresita “Shiela” Okabe with estafa.
After the preliminary investigation, 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Vibandor came out with a resolution
finding probable cause for estafa against Okabe. Attached to the resolution was the Information
against Okabe and Maruyama’s affidavit complaint. The City Prosecutor approved the resolution
and the Information.
On May 15, 2000, an Information against Okabe was filed with RTC Pasay. The case was raffled
to Judge Gutierrez.
Appended to the Information was the complaint of Maruyama and the resolution of Prosecutor
Vibandor. Basing probable cause solely on Maruyama’s complaint and the resolution of
Prosecutor Vibandor, the RTC issued a warrant of arrest against Okabe. On June 15, 2000,
Okabe posted bail.
For her part, Okabe filed a 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 Maruyama’s complaint for estafa and the
resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the witnesses’ affidavits, and other evidence were not
attached thereto. Okabe further alleged that the documents submitted by the investigating
prosecutor were not enough on which the RTC could base a finding of a probable cause for
estafa against her.
Okabe did not enter any plea. The RTC then entered a not guilty plea for Okabe.
As such, Okabe filed a case against the RTC for issuing a warrant of arrest despite lack of
probable cause and committing GAOD when it issued its Orders.
The CA ruled that, by posting bail and praying for reliefs from the RTC, Okabe waived her right
to assail Judge Gutierrez’ finding of the existence of probable cause. Thus, the CA affirmed the
assailed order of the RTC.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 for the reversal of the CA
resolution.
ISSUE
WON the RTC complied with the constitutional requirements, such that there was probable
cause, when it issued a warrant of arrest – NO
RATIO
Okabe asserts that Judge Gutierrez could not have determined the existence of probable cause
for her arrest solely on the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and the complaint of
respondent Maruyama. Okabe posits that Judge Gutierrez should have ordered the investigating
prosecutor to submit witnesses’ affidavits as well as her counter-affidavit and the transcripts of
the stenographic notes taken during preliminary investigation. Okabe adds that Judge Gutierrez
should have personally reviewed said documents.
voluntarily submitted herself to the RTC and waived her right to assail the infirmities in the RTC’s
issuance of the warrant of arrest.
The SC agrees with Okabe’s contention that the CA erred in not applying Rule 114, Sec. 26 of
the RRCP. (Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation)
The SC also agrees that before the RTC judge issues a warrant of arrest, the judge must make
a personal determination of the existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. This
duty is personal and exclusive to the issuing judge. He cannot abdicate this duty and rely on the
certification of the investigating prosecutor.
If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause, he executes a certification. Such
certification is not binding on the RTC. Nor may the RTC rely on said certification as basis for a
finding of probable cause.
The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of the
accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged of crimes rom tribulations,
expenses, and anxiety of a public trial.
Aside from the investigating prosecutor’s report, the judge should consider the counter-affidavit
of the accused and his witnesses as well as transcript of stenographic notes taken during
preliminary investigation.
Rule 112, Sec. 8 (a) of the RRCP provides that an Information or complaint shall be supported
by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, together with other
supporting evidence.
If the judge is also able to determine the existence of probable cause on the basis of the records
submitted by the investigating prosecutor, there would no longer be a need to order the elevation
of the rest of the records of the case. However, if the judge finds the records submitted by the
investigating prosecutor to be insufficient, he may order the dismissal of the case or direct the
submission of more evidence. The judge may even call the complainant and his witnesses
themselves to answer the courts probing question to determine the existence of probable cause.
Here, the investing prosecutor submitted to Judge Gutierrez only his resolution and the
complaint of the private complainant without the witnesses’ affidavits and Okabe’s counter-
affidavit as well as the evidence adduced by complainants as required by law. The aforecited
affidavits are of vital importance as they would enable Judge Gutierrez to properly determine the
existence of probable cause.
In sum, the SC declares that Judge Gutierrez committed GAOD in finding probable cause
for Okabe’s arrest in the absence of copies of affidavits of the private complainant’s
witnesses and her reply affidavit, Okabe’s counter-affidavit, and the evidence adduced
during the preliminary investigation before the investigating prosecutor.
DISPOSITIVE
PETITION GRANTED.
CA REVERSED.
CASE REMANDED TO RTC.
JUDGE GUTIERREZ DIRECTED TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE BASED ON
COMPLETE RECORDS, AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 112, SEC. 8 (A) OF RRCP