Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01 TOPIC: When and how warrant issued - “Only when evidence plainly fails to establish

nd how warrant issued - “Only when evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause.”
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD AUTHOR: MONTAÑER
134) DE LOS SANTOS-DIO V. CAGUIOA 7) Two criminal information were filed with RTC where it ruled in favor of Desmond
G.R. No. 178947& G.R. No. 179079, June 26, 2013 and declared that no probable cause exists for the crimes charged against him
Perlas-Bernabe, J. since the elements of estafa were not all present.
8) City prosecutor filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion. CA upheld the RTC’s authority to dismiss a
[ G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013 ] Virginia De Los Santos Dio, As criminal case if in the process of determining probable cause for issuing a
Authorized Representative Of H.S. Equities, Ltd., And Westdale Assets, Ltd., warrant of arrest, it also finds the evidence on record insufficient to establish
Petitioner, vs. CA, Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, In His Capacity As Presiding probable cause.
Judge Of Branch 74, Regional. Trial Court, Olongapo City, And Timothy J. 9) MRs filed by City prosecutor and Dio were denied. Hence, the instant petitions.
Desmond, Respondents. & [G.R. No. 179079]
 People Of Philippines,
Petitioner, vs.
 Timothy J. Desmond, Respondent. HELD:

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial. The EXECUTIVE
the RTC when it dismissed the subject information for lack of probable cause. -YES is made by the public prosecutor, during a preliminary investigation, where he is given
broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists for the purpose of filing a
FACTS: criminal information in court. While, the JUDICIAL is one made by the judge to
ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The
1) Petitioner Virginia De Los Santos-Dio (Dio), the majority stockholder of H.S. judge must satisfy himself that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, there is
Equities, Ltd. (HS Equities) and authorized representative of Westdale Assets, a necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the
Ltd. (Westdale), was introduced to respondent Desmond, the Chairman and ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced
CEO of the Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc. (SBMEI), and the authorized to issue the arrest warrant.
representative of Active Environments, Inc. and JV China, Inc., the majority
shareholder of SBMEI. While a judge’s determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited
2) After some discussion on possible business ventures, Dio, on behalf of HS purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Equities, decided to invest a total of US$1,150,000.00 in SBMEI’s Ocean Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case if
Adventure Marine Park, a theme park to be constructed at the Subic Bay the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.
Freeport Zone.
3) Dio, this time on behalf of Westdale, invested another $1M in a separate RTC’s immediate dismissal, as affirmed by the CA, was improper as the
business venture, called the Miracle Beach Hotel Project. standard of clear lack of probable cause was not observed. In this case, records
4) Dio claimed that she found out that, contrary to Desmond’s representations, show that certain essential facts — namely, (a) whether or not Desmond committed
SBMEI actually had no capacity to deliver on its guarantees. Dio discovered that, false representations that induced Dio to invest in Ocean Adventure; and (b) whether
without her knowledge and consent, Desmond made certain disbursements from or not Desmond utilized the funds invested by Dio solely for the Miracle Beach Project
Westdale’s special account, meant only for Miracle Beach expenditures. for purposes different from what was agreed upon — remain controverted hence, it
5) Dio was ousted as Director and Treasurer of SBMEI, she then filed two criminal cannot be said that the absence of the elements of the crime of estafa under
complaints for estafa (a) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence through Article 315(2)(a) and 315(1)(b) of the RPC had already been established, thereby
misappropriation or conversion under Article 315(1)(b) of RPC; and (b) through rendering the RTC’s immediate dismissal of the case highly improper.
false pretenses under Article 315(2)(a), both against Desmond.
6) City Prosecutor issued a Resolution finding probable cause against Desmond: A judge's discretion to dismiss a case immediately after the filing of the information in
o The elements of the crimes charged were thus established in these cases, court is appropriate only when the failure to establish probable cause can be clearly
namely Dio parted with her money upon the prodding and enticement of inferred from the evidence presented and not when its existence is simply doubtful.
respondent on the false pretense that he had the capacity and resources for
the proposed project. In the end, Dio was not able to get her money back, Given that the lack of probable cause had not been clearly established in this case,
thus causing her damage and prejudice. Moreover, such defraudation or the CA erred, and the RTC gravely abused its discretion, by ruling to dismiss Criminal
misappropriation having been committed by Desmond through his company Cases. These cases must stand the muster of a full-blown trial where the parties
SBMEI involving funds solicited from Dio as a member of the general public could be given, as they should be given, the opportunity to ventilate their respective
in contravention of the public interest, the probable cause clearly exists to claims and defenses, on the basis of which the court a quo can properly resolve the
indict Desmond for the crime of Estafa. factual disputes therein.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The trial court is directed to proceed with
the arraignment of the accused and the trial of the case with dispatch.
CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01 TOPIC: When and how warrant issued - “Only when evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause.”
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD AUTHOR: MONTAÑER

NOTES:
 Once the information is filed with the court and the judge proceeds with his
primordial task of evaluating the evidence on record, he may either:
(a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause;
(b) immediately dismiss the case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause; and
(c) order the prosecutor to submit additional evidence, in case he doubts the
existence of probable cause.

 Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned hereinbelow xxx:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: xxx

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods,


or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally
or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property. xxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed


prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,


qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits. xxx

 2 basic elements of Estafa:


(a) Fraud; and
(b) Resulting damage or intent to cause damage capable of pecuniary
estimation.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen