7/25/2019 (011) - Hao v. People

1/3

MA. GRACIA HAO AND DANNY HAO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESGR No. 183345 Septembe 1! "#14

F$%t& 'Manuel Dy Awiten (Dy), claimed that as a longtime client of Asiatrust Bank (where Ngowas the manager) and because of their good business relationship, he took Ngos adice todeposit his money in an inestment that will gie a higher rate of return! Ngo introduced Dy to

"racia #ao (#ao) (petitioner), who presented herself as an officer of arious reputablecompanies and an incorporator of $tate %esources Deelopment &orporation wheresubse'uently D inested!

Dys initial inestment was *+M! #e receied the promised interest from is inestment! hus,conincing him to inest more! #e inested almost *++M! he additional inestments weregien through checks! "racio #ao also issued seeral checks representing Dys earnings!hese checks were subse'uently dishonored!

Dy seek Ngos help to recoer the amount! Ngo promised, howeer, Dy subse'uentlydiscoered that the former already resigned from the bank! his time, Dy confronted "racia! Dylearned that his money was inested in the realty business of "racia #aos realty business!

Dy filed a complaint with the public prosecutor! he public prosecutor filed an information forsyndicated estafa!

-arrant of arrest were subse'uently issued against the #aos and other accused #ao filed amotion to defer arraignment and motion to lift warrant of arrest! hey inoked lack of probablecause and the pendency of their petition for reiew with the D./!

%& denied the petitioners twin motion!

&A affirmed the %&s decision with regard to the twin motion! #oweer, the &A opined that theinformation shows only probable cause for simple estafa only!

#ence this petition!

I&&(e'-hether or not the arraignment shall be deferred because of the pendency of the petitionfor reiew with the D./

He)*' N.! 0nder $ection **(c), %ule **1of the %ules of &ourt, an arraignment may besuspended if there is a petition for reiew of the resolution of the prosecutor pending at eitherthe D./, or the .ffice of the resident! #oweer, such period of suspension should not e2ceedsi2ty (1+) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reiewing office!

As the petitioners alleged, they filed a petition for reiew with the D./ on Noember 3*, 3++4!

$ince this petition had not been resoled yet, they claimed that their arraignment should be

suspended indefinitely!

7/25/2019 (011) - Hao v. People

2/3

-e emphasi5e that the right of an accused to hae his arraignment suspended is not an

un'ualified right! 6n $pouses rinidad ! Ang, we e2plained that while the pendency of a petition

for reiew is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the %ules limit the deferment of the

arraignment to a period of 1+ days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reiewing

office! 6t follows, therefore, that after the e2piration of the 1+7day period, the trial court is bound

to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment!

As the trial court found in its 8ebruary 31, 3++9 order, the D./:s delay in resoling the

petitioners: petition for reiew had already e2ceeded 1+ days! $ince the suspension of the

petitioners: arraignment was already beyond the period allowed by the %ules, the petitioners:

motion to suspend completely lacks any legal basis!

As a final note, we obsere that the resolution of this case had long been delayed because of

the petitioners: refusal to submit to the trial court:s ;urisdiction and their erroneous inocation of

the %ules in their faor! As there is probable cause for the petitioners: commission of a crime,

their arrest and arraignment should now ensue so that this case may properly proceed to trial,

where the merits of both the parties: eidence and allegations may be weighed!

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM WITH

MODIFIATION the Febr!ary "#, "$$% decision and &!ne '(, "$$# reso)!tion o* the o!rt o*

Appea)s in A+R -. No #%"#/ We hereby order that petitioners Ma +racia Hao and DannyHao be char0ed *or simp)e esta*a !nder Artic)e ('12"32a3 o* the Re4ised .ena) ode, as

amended and be arrai0ned *or this char0e The warrants o* arrest iss!ed stand

3! -.N a alid warrant of arrest is issued

7/25/2019 (011) - Hao v. People

3/3

he records showed that /udge Mar'ue5 made a personal determination of the e2istence of

probable cause to support the issuance of the warrants! he petitioners, in fact, did not present

any eidence to controert this! As the trial court ruled in its 8ebruary 31, 3++9 order>

he non7arrest of all the accused or their refusal to surrender practically resulted in the

suspension of arraignment e2ceeding the si2ty (1+) days counted from the filing of co7accused

De /oyas motions, which may be considered a petition for reiew, and that of co7accused

$pouses #aos own petition for reiew! his is not to mention the delay in the resolution by the

Department of /ustice! .n the other hand, co7accused De/oyas motion to determine probable

cause and co7accused $pouses #aos motion to lift warrant of arrest hae been rendered moot

and academic with the issuance of warrants of arrest by this presiding ;udge after his personal

e2amination of the facts and circumstances strong enough in themseles to support the belief

that they are guilty of the crime that in fact happened!4+?