.

insufficient funds or that the account was

closed.2
G.R. No. 162416             January 31,
2006CHESTER DE JOYA, Petitioner, 2. Affidavit-Complaint of private complainant
vs. Manuel Dy Awiten.3
JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 40, Manila-RTC, 3. Copies of the checks issued by private
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE SECRETARY complainant in favor of State Resources
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents. Corporation.4

DECISION 4. Copies of the checks issued to private

complainant representing the supposed return
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition that of his investments in State Resources.5
seeks the Court to nullify and set aside the warrant of
arrest issued by respondent judge against petitioner in 5. Demand letter sent by private complainant
Criminal Case No. 03-219952 for violation of Article to Ma. Gracia Tan Hao.6
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 6. Supplemental Affidavit of private
probable cause that justifies the issuance of a warrant complainant to include the incorporators and
of arrest against him and his co-accused. members of the board of directors of State
Resources Development Management
Corporation as participants in the conspiracy to
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal commit the crime of syndicated estafa. Among
Procedure provides: those included was petitioner Chester De Joya.7

Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) 7. Counter-Affidavits of Chester De Joya and
By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days the other accused, Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny
from the filing of the complaint or information, the S. Hao.
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the
prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record Also included in the records are the resolution issued
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds by State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao finding probable
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of cause to indict petitioner and his other co-accused for
arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has syndicated estafa,8 and a copy of the Articles of
already been arrested pursuant to a warrant Incorporation of State Resources Development
issued by the judge who conducted the Management Corporation naming petitioner as
preliminary investigation or when the complaint incorporator and director of said corporation.
or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of
this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of This Court finds that these documents sufficiently
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to establish the existence of probable cause as required
present additional evidence within five (5) days from under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
notice and the issuance must be resolved by the court Criminal Procedure. Probable cause to issue a warrant
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of arrest pertains to facts and circumstances which
or information. would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person
to believe that an offense has been committed by the
x x x1 person sought to be arrested. It bears remembering
that "in determining probable cause, the average man
weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to
This Court finds from the records of Criminal Case No. the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence of
03-219952 the following documents to support the which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the
motion of the prosecution for the issuance of a warrant calculus of common sense of which all reasonable men
of arrest: have an abundance."9 Thus, the standard used for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest is less stringent than
1. The report of the National Bureau of that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As
Investigation to Chief State Prosecutor long as the evidence presented shows a prima
Jovencito R. Zuño as regards their investigation facie case against the accused, the trial court judge
on the complaint filed by private complainant has sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest
Manuel Dy Awiten against Mina Tan Hao @ Ma. against him.
Gracia Tan Hao and Victor Ngo y Tan for
syndicated estafa. The report shows that Hao The foregoing documents found in the records and
induced Dy to invest more than a hundred examined by respondent judge tend to show that
million pesos in State Resources Development therein private complainant was enticed to invest a
Management Corporation, but when the latter’s large sum of money in State Resources Development
investments fell due, the checks issued by Hao Management Corporation; that he issued several
in favor of Dy as payment for his investments checks amounting to P114,286,086.14 in favor of the
were dishonored for being drawn against corporation; that the corporation, in turn, issued

1|Page
several checks to private complainant, purportedly the parties, cannot be conferred on the court
representing the return of his investments; that said by the voluntary act or agreement of the
checks were later dishonored for insufficient funds and parties.
closed account; that petitioner and his co-accused,
being incorporators and directors of the corporation, d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This
had knowledge of its activities and transactions. These is determined and conferred by the pleadings
are all that need to be shown to establish probable filed in the case by the parties, or by their
cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. It agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or,
need not be shown that the accused are indeed guilty at times by their implied consent as by the
of the crime charged. That matter should be left to the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
trial. It should be emphasized that before issuing issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided
warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally in Sec. 5, Rule 10.
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 e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or
cause. They just personally review the initial thing which is the subject of the litigation). This
determination of the prosecutor finding a probable is acquired by the actual or constructive
cause to see if it is supported by substantial seizure by the court of the thing in question,
evidence.10 In case of doubt on the existence of thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
probable cause, the Rules allow the judge to order the attachment or garnishment; or by provision of
prosecutor to present additional evidence. In the law which recognizes in the court the power to
present case, it is notable that the resolution issued by deal with the property or subject matter within
State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao thoroughly explains the its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration
bases for his findings that there is probable cause to proceedings or suits involving civil status or
charge all the accused with violation of Article 315, par. real property in the Philippines of a non-
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to P.D. No. resident defendant.
1689.
Justice Regalado continues to explain:
The general rule is that this Court does not review the
factual findings of the trial court, which include the In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the
warrant of arrest. It is only in exceptional cases where person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has
this Court sets aside the conclusions of the prosecutor jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves
and the trial judge on the existence of probable cause, the personal status of the plaintiff or property in the
that is, when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest.
the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly In such cases, the service of summons by publication
administration of justice. The facts obtaining in this and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with
case do not warrant the application of the due process requirements. Under Sec. 133 of the
exception.lavvph!l.ne+ Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue
In addition, it may not be amiss to note that petitioner or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or
is not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from proceeded against before our courts or administrative
the trial court as he continuously refuses to surrender tribunals.11
and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Justice Florenz D.
Regalado explains the requisites for the exercise of Again, there is no exceptional reason in this case to
jurisdiction and how the court acquires such allow petitioner to obtain relief from the courts without
jurisdiction, thus: submitting to its jurisdiction. On the contrary, his
continued refusal to submit to the court’s jurisdiction
x x x Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how should give this Court more reason to uphold the action
the court acquires such jurisdiction: 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
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or evasive stance shows an intent to circumvent and
petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the frustrate the object of this legal process. It should be
complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before remembered that he who invokes the court’s
the court by the plaintiff or petitioner. jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction.

b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or G.R. No. 47517             June 27, 1941IDONAH
respondent: This is acquired by the SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,
voluntary appearance or submission by vs.
the defendant or respondent to the court MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL., respondents.
or by coercive process issued by the court
to him, generally by the service of
summons. On July 5, 1938, the respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins,
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila
against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for
c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is the recovery of the sum of P71,379.90, consisting of
conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over dividends which have been declared and made payable

2|Page
on 52,874 shares of stock registered in his name, Instance of Manila; and which New York judgment the
payment of which was being withheld by the company, Court of First Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction
and for the recognition of his right to the control and to annul, amend, reverse, or modify in any respect
disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. whatsoever"; and praying that the order of the
To the complaint, the company filed its answer, respondent judge overruling the demurrer be annulled,
alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of and that he and his successors be permanently
plaintiff's right to the disposal and control of the shares prohibited from taking any action on the case, except
was due to certain demands made with respect to said to dismiss the same.
shares by the petitioner herein. Idonah Slade Perkins,
and by one George H. Engelhard. The answer prays The only question here to be determined, therefore, is
that the adverse claimants be made parties to the whether or not, in view of the alleged judgment
action and served with notice thereof by publication, entered in favor of the petitioner by the Supreme Court
and that thereafter all such parties be required to of New York, and which is claimed by her to be res
interplead and settle the rights among themselves. judicata on all questions raised by the respondent,
Eugene Arthur Perkins, in civil case No. 53317 of the
On September 5, 1938, the trial court ordered the Court of First Instace of Manila, the local court has
respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, to include in his jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in the
complaint as parties defendants petitioner, Idonah said case. By jurisdiction over the subject matter is
Slade Perkins, and George H. Engelhard. The complaint meant the nature of the cause of action and of the
was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief relief sought, and this is conferred by the sovereign
prayed for in the original complaint, respondent Perkins authority which organizes the court, and is to be
prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George sought for in general nature of its powers, or in
H. Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the authority specially conferred. In the present case, the
shares of stock in question and excluded from any amended complaint filed by the respondent, Eugene
claim they assert thereon. Thereafter, summons by Arthur Perkins, in the court below alleged the
publication were served upon the non-resident ownership in himself of the conjugal partnership
defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. between him and his wife, Idonah Slade Perkins; that
Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. On the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, and George H.
December 9, 1938, Engelhard filed his answer to the Engelhard assert claims to and interests in the said
amended complaint, and on January 8, 1940, stock adverse to Eugene Arthur Perkins; that such
petitioner's objection to the court's jurisdiction over her claims are invalid, unfounded, and made only for the
person having been overruled by the trial court and by purpose of vexing, hindering and delaying Eugene
this court in G. R. No. 46831, petitioner filed her Arthur Perkins in the exercise of the lawful control over
answer with a cross-complaint in which she sets up a and use of said shares and dividends accorded to him
judgment allegedly obtained by her against and by law and by previous orders and decrees of this
respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, from the Supreme court; and the said amended complaint prays, inter
Court of the State of New York, wherein it is declared alia, "that defendant Benguet Consolidated Mining
that she is the sole legal owner and entitled to the Company be required and ordered to recognize the
possession and control of the shares of stock in right of the plaintiff to the control and disposal of said
question together with all the cash dividends declared shares so standing in his name to the exclusion of all
thereon by the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, others; that the additional defendants, Idonah Slade
and prays for various affirmative reliefs against the Perkins and George H. Engelhard, be each held to have
respondent. To the answer and cross-complaint thus no interest or claim in the subject matter of the
filed, the respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, filed a controversy between plaintiff and defendant Benguet
reply and an answer in which he sets up several Consolidated Mining Company, or in or under the
defenses to the enforcement in this jurisdiction of the judgment to be rendered herein and that by said
judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New judgment they, and each of them be excluded
York above alluded to. Instead of demurring to the therefrom; and that the plaintiff be awarded the costs
reply on either of the two grounds specified in section of this suit and general relief." The respondent's action,
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner, Idonah therefore, calls for the adjudication of title to certain
Slade Perkins, on June 5, 1940, filed a demurrer thereto shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining
on the ground that "the court has no jurisdiction of the Company, and the granting of affirmative reliefs, which
subject of the action," because the alleged judgment of fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First
the Supreme Court of the State of New York is res Instance of Manila. (Vide: sec. 146, et seq., Adm. Code,
judicata. as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 145; sec. 56,
Act No. 136, as amended by Act No. 400.)
Petitioner's demurrer having been overruled, she now
filed in this court a petition entitled "Certiorari, Similarly, the Court of First Instance of Manila is
Prohibition and Mandamus," alleging that "the empowered to adjudicate the several demands
respondent judge is about to and will render judgment contained in petitioner's cross-complaint. The cross-
in the above-mentioned case disregarding the complaint sets up a judgment allegedly recovered by
constitutional rights of this petitioner; contrary to and Idonah Slade Perkins against Eugene Arthur Perkins in
annulling the final, subsisting, valid judgment rendered the Supreme Court of New York and by way of relief
and entered in this petitioner's favor by the courts of prays:
the State of New York, ... which decision is res
judicata on all the questions constituting the subject (1) Judgment against the plaintiff Eugene
matter of civil case No. 53317, of the Court of First Arthur Perkins in the sum of one hundred

3|Page
 eighty-five thousand and four hundred dollars petitioner's favor by the courts of the State of New
($185,400), representing cash dividends paid York, ... which decision is res judicata on all the
to him by defendant Benguet Consolidated questions constituting the subject matter of civil case
Mining Co. from February, 1930, up to and No. 53317," and argues on the assumption that the
including the dividend of March 30, 1937. respondent judge is without jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the cause. Whether or not the
(2) That plaintiff Eugene Arthur Perkins be respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will
required to deliver to this defendant the give validity and efficacy to the New York judgment set
certificates representing the 48,000 shares of up by the petitioner in her cross-complaint is a
capital stock of Benguet Consolidated Mining question that goes to the merits of the controversy and
Co. issued as a stock dividend on the 24,000 relates to the rights of the parties as between each
shares owned by this defendant as described in other, and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court.
the judgment Exhibit 1-A. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal
has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its
conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong. If its
(3) That this defendant recover under that decision is erroneous, its judgment case be reversed
judgment Exhibit 1-A interest upon the amount on appeal; but its determination of the question, which
of each cash dividend referred to in that the petitioner here anticipates and seeks to prevent, is
judgment received by plaintiff Eugene Arthur the exercise by that court — and the rightful exercise
Perkins from February, 1930, to and including — of its jurisdiction.
the dividend of March 30, 1937, from the date
of payment of each of such dividends at the
rate of 7 per cent per annum until paid. The petition is, therefore, hereby denied, with costs
against the petitioner. So ordered.
(4) That this defendant recover of plaintiff her
costs and disbursements in that New York
action amounting to the sum of one thousand
five hundred eighty-four and 20/00 dollars
($1,584.20), and the further sum of two
thousand dollars ($2,000) granted her in that
judgment Exhibit 1-A as an extra allowance,
together with interest.

(5) For an order directing an execution to be

issued in favor of this defendant and against
the plaintiff for amounts sufficient to satisfy the
New York judgment Exhibit 1-A in its entirety,
and against the plaintiff and the defendant
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. for such other
amounts prayed for herein as this court may
find to be due and payable by each of them;
and ordering them to comply with all other
orders which this court may issue in favor of
the defendant in this case.

(6) For the costs of this action, and

(7) For such other relief as may be appropriate

and proper in the premises.

In other words, Idonah Slade Perkins in her cross-

complaint brought suit against Eugene Arthur Perkins
and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon
the alleged judgment of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York and asked the court below to render
judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and to
issue execution thereon. This is a form of action
recognized by section 309 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate, settled
and determine.

The petitioner expresses the fear that the respondent

judge may render judgment "annulling the final,
subsisting, valid judgment rendered and entered in this

4|Page