Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny Hao, petitioners, v.

People of the Philippines, respondent

Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC, filed by the petitioners. They seek the
reversal of the CA decision affirming the orders of the RTC of Manila.

Facts:

1. Manuel Dy alleged that he was a long time client of Asiatrust Bank, Binondo Brance where Victor Ngo
was the manager.
2. Because of their good business relationship, Dy took Ngo’s advice to deposit his money in an investment
house that will give a higher return.
3. Ngo then introduced him to Ma. Gracia Hao, who presented herself as an officer of various reputable
companies and an incorporator of State Resourcs.
4. Dy initially invested 10Million thereafter earned the promised interests.
5. Gracia urged Dy to increase the investment to almost 100Million.
6. In return, Gracia issued several checks to Dy representing his earning for his investment with the total
of 114Million. All these checks were subsequently dishonored when Dy deposited them.
7. He eventually learned that Gracia invested his money in the construction and realty business of Gracia’s
husband, Danny Hao. Despite their promises to pay, the petitioners never returned Dy’s money.
8. On the basis of Dy’s complaint and supplemental affidavit, the public prosecuted filed an information for
syndicated estafa against the petitioners and their co-accused.
9. Judge Marquez issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners and the other accused.
10. RTC denied the petitioners’ motion to lift warrant of arrest.
11. CA affirmed the denial noting that Judge Marquez issued the warrants of arrest after his personal
examination of the facts and circumstance of the case.
12. CA opined that the evidence on record and the assertions in Dy’s affidavits only show probably cause for
the crime of simple estafa, not syndicated estafa.

Petitioners’arguments:

1. They invoked the absence of probably cause against them and the pendency of their petitioner for
review with the DOJ.
2. Since simple estafa and syndicated estafa are two distinct offenses, then the warrants of arrest issued to
petitioners were erroneous because these warrants pertained to two different crimes.

Issue: WON there was probable cause on the issuance of warrant of arrest despite the fact that the crime committed
was changed to simple estafa from syndicated estafa.

Held:

WHEREFOR, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATION the February
28, 2006 decision and June 13, 2008 resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 86289. We hereby order that petitioners
Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny Hao be charged for simple estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC, as amended and be
arraigned for this charge. The warrants of arrest issued stand.

1. Under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge is mandated to personally
determine the existence of probable cause after his personal evaluation of the prosecutor's resolution and the
supporting evidence for the crime charged. These provisions command the judge to refrain from malting a mindless
acquiescence to the prosecutor's findings and to conduct his own examination of the facts and circumstances
presented by both parties.
2. In the present case, the trial court chose to issue warrants of arrest to the petitioners and their co-
accused. To be valid, these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable
cause be personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the
probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing; he only
needs to personally review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Notes:

Distinction between Executive and Judicial Determination of Probable Cause:

In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is determined at two stages. The first is at the executive level, where
determination is made by the prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, before the filing of the criminal
information. The second is at the judicial level, undertaken by the judge before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Under this provision, estafa has the following elements: 1) the existence of a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; 2) the execution of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; 3) the reliance by the offended party on the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means, which induced him to part with his money or property; and 4) as a result, the
offended party suffered damage.

Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, there is syndicated estafa if the following elements are present: 1) estafa or other
forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC was committed; 2) the estafa or swindling was
committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and 3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of moneys
contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers
associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

The factual circumstances of the present case show that the first and second elements of syndicated estafa are
present; there is probable cause for violation of Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC against the petitioners. Moreover, in
Dy's supplemental complaint-affidavit, he alleged that the fraud perpetrated against him was committed, not only by
Ngo and the petitioners, but also by the other officers and directors of State Resources. The number of the accused
who allegedly participated in defrauding Dy exceeded five, thus satisfying the requirement for the existence of a
syndicate.