Okabe vs Gutierez

G.R. No. 150185

May 27, 2004

Callejo, Sr., J.
FACTS:
Maruyama sued Okabe for estafa. It was alleged in the complaint that Maruyama entrusted to Okabe a sum
of money for the latter, who was engaged in the business of door to door delivery, to remit to the Philippines. Okabe
failed to remit such amount. The complaint for estafa was filed with the 2 nd assistant prosecutor for preliminary
investigation. During the preliminary investigation, both Okabe and Marumaya were given the chance to adduce
evidences/affidavits on their behalf. The 2 nd assistant city prosecutor found probable cause and issued a resolution
and the corresponding information. Appended thereto was the Maruyamas complaint affidavit.
These documents were forwarded to the city prosecutor for approval. Then the information was filed with the RTC
of Pasay. A warrant of arrest was issued but Okabe was able to post bail in the amount of 40,000 thereby allowing
her to freely to freely leave the country for Japan.
Upon the instance of the prosecutor, a hold departure order was issued by the court. Okabe filed a motion
for judicial determination of probable cause. She claims that the documents attached to the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor were insufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause. She contends that it behooved the
investigation prosecutor to submit the following to the trial court to enable it to determine the presence or absence of
probable cause:
a)
b)
c)
d)

Copies of the affidavits of the witness of the complainant;

The counter affidavit of Okabe and those of her witnesses
Transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation;
Other documents presented during the said investigation

ISSUE:
WON CA commit a reversible error in finding that respondent judge complied with the constitutional requirements
of issuance of a warrant of arrest.
HELD:
Affirmative. The court found that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for the petitioners arrest in the absence of copies of affidavit of witnesses,
private complaint and affidavit of the petitioner including the evidence in the preliminary investigation.
The judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavits and the
documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript
of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating
prosecutor upon the filing of the information.