Okabe vs 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.