De Joya v. Marquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Chester De Joya was accused of violation of Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 (syndicated estafa). The private complainant, Manuel Dy Awiten, alleged that Mina Tan Hao induced him to invest over a hundred million pesos in State Resources Development Management Corporation. Checks issued by Hao for the return of investments were dishonored due to insufficient funds or closed accounts. A supplemental affidavit included petitioner Chester De Joya, along with others, as incorporators and board members allegedly involved in a conspiracy to commit syndicated estafa. Procedural History: State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner and his co-accused for syndicated estafa. Respondent Judge Placido C. Marquez issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify the warrant of arrest, asserting that the judge erred in finding probable cause. The Petition: Petitioner asserted 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.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge erred in finding the existence of probable cause that justifies the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner. Whether petitioner is entitled to seek relief from the Court without submitting to its jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of probable cause: The Court found that the documents presented sufficiently established the existence of probable cause as required by Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The standard for probable cause is less stringent than that for establishing guilt, requiring only a prima facie case. The evidence showed that the private complainant was enticed to invest a large sum, issued checks that were dishonored, and that petitioner, as an incorporator and director, had knowledge of the corporation's activities. These facts were sufficient for the judge to issue a warrant of arrest, as judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt at this stage. The Court also noted that the prosecutor's resolution thoroughly explained the bases for finding probable cause. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that petitioner was not entitled to seek relief from the Court or the trial court as he continuously refused to surrender and submit to the court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the respondent is acquired by voluntary appearance or submission, or by coercive process. Petitioner's evasive stance showed an intent to circumvent legal processes. The purpose of a warrant of arrest is to place the accused under the custody of the law for trial, and one who invokes the court's jurisdiction must first submit to it.
Main Doctrine
The determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The standard is less stringent than that for establishing guilt, requiring only a prima facie case.