de Joya V Marquez
de Joya V Marquez
de Joya V Marquez
162416
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
SECOND DIVISION
vs.
JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 40, Manila-RTC, PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition that seeks the Court to nullify and set aside the warrant of arrest
issued by respondent judge against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 03-219952 for violation of Article 315, par. 2(a)
of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1689. Petitioner asserts that respondent
judge erred in finding the existence of probable cause that justifies the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him
and his co-accused.
Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the
filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule.
In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issuance must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from
the filing of the complaint or information.
x x x1
This Court finds from the records of Criminal Case No. 03-219952 the following documents to support the motion of
the prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest:
1. The report of the National Bureau of Investigation to Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño as regards
their investigation on the complaint filed by private complainant Manuel Dy Awiten against Mina Tan Hao @
Ma. Gracia Tan Hao and Victor Ngo y Tan for syndicated estafa. The report shows that Hao induced Dy to
invest more than a hundred million pesos in State Resources Development Management Corporation, but
when the latter’s investments fell due, the checks issued by Hao in favor of Dy as payment for his
investments were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds or that the account was closed.2
3. Copies of the checks issued by private complainant in favor of State Resources Corporation.4
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html 1/4
8/23/2021 G.R. No. 162416
4. Copies of the checks issued to private complainant representing the supposed return of his investments in
State Resources.5
6. Supplemental Affidavit of private complainant to include the incorporators and members of the board of
directors of State Resources Development Management Corporation as participants in the conspiracy to
commit the crime of syndicated estafa. Among those included was petitioner Chester De Joya.7
7. Counter-Affidavits of Chester De Joya and the other accused, Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny S. Hao.
Also included in the records are the resolution issued by State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao finding probable cause to
indict petitioner and his other co-accused for syndicated estafa,8 and a copy of the Articles of Incorporation of State
Resources Development Management Corporation naming petitioner as incorporator and director of said
corporation.
This Court finds that these documents sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause as required under
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest
pertains to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. It bears remembering that "in determining
probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our
technical rules of evidence of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense of
which all reasonable men have an abundance."9 Thus, the standard used for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is
less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence presented shows a
prima facie case against the accused, the trial court judge has sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest against
him.
The foregoing documents found in the records and examined by respondent judge tend to show that therein private
complainant was enticed to invest a large sum of money in State Resources Development Management
Corporation; that he issued several checks amounting to P114,286,086.14 in favor of the corporation; that the
corporation, in turn, issued several checks to private complainant, purportedly representing the return of his
investments; that said checks were later dishonored for insufficient funds and closed account; that petitioner and his
co-accused, being incorporators and directors of the corporation, had knowledge of its activities and transactions.
These are all that need to be shown to establish probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. It
need not be shown that the accused are indeed guilty of the crime charged. That matter should be left to the trial. It
should be emphasized that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not
the certainty, of guilt of an accused. Hence, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of
probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to
see if it is supported by substantial evidence.10 In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the Rules allow
the judge to order the prosecutor to present additional evidence. In the present case, it is notable that the resolution
issued by State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao thoroughly explains the bases for his findings that there is probable cause
to charge all the accused with violation of Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to P.D. No.
1689.
The general rule is that this Court does not review the factual findings of the trial court, which include the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. It is only in exceptional cases where this Court
sets aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial judge on the existence of probable cause, that is, when it is
necessary to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration of justice. The
facts obtaining in this case do not warrant the application of the exception. lavvph!l.ne+
In addition, it may not be amiss to note that petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from the trial
court as he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Justice Florenz D. Regalado
explains the requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such jurisdiction, thus:
x x x Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory
pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or
submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to
him, generally by the service of summons.
c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot
be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html 2/4
8/23/2021 G.R. No. 162416
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case
by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as
by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5,
Rule 10.
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation). This is acquired by
the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the
property or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving
civil status or real property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of
a nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the personal status
of the plaintiff or property in the Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest. In such cases, the service of
summons by publication and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with due process requirements. Under Sec.
133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license cannot
sue or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or proceeded against before our courts or administrative
tribunals.11
Again, there is no exceptional reason in this case to allow petitioner to obtain relief from the courts without
submitting to its jurisdiction. On the contrary, his continued refusal to submit to the court’s jurisdiction should give
this Court more reason to uphold the action of the respondent judge. The purpose of a warrant of arrest is to place
the accused under the custody of the law to hold him for trial of the charges against him. His evasive stance shows
an intent to circumvent and frustrate the object of this legal process. It should be remembered that he who invokes
the court’s jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html 3/4
8/23/2021 G.R. No. 162416
Footnotes
1 Emphasis supplied.
3 Id. at 42-43.
5 Id. at 49-62.
6 Id. at 64.
7 Id. at 65-67.
8 Id. at 22-33.
10 Ibid.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html 4/4