de Joya v. Judge Placido Marquez
de Joya v. Judge Placido Marquez
MARQUEZ
Topic
Case No. | G.R. No. 162416 January 31, 2006
Date
Ponente AZCUNA, J.
Doctrine
Link https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html
RELEVANT FACTS:
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. 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.
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.
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, and a copy of
the Articles of Incorporation of State Resources Development Management Corporation naming
petitioner as incorporator and director of said corporation.
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case
RULING:
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." 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.
Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such jurisdiction:
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.