The Supreme Court granted a Petition for Review on Certiorari and lifted the Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) issued against Faustine Feliz Abad, reversing the Orders dated March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2021 of Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The Court found no basis to sustain the PHDO and held that the RTC was in clear error when it did so.
The Case
On June 3, 2020, Johanna Moulic (Johanna), the sole proprietor of respondent GHT Travel and Tours (GHT), filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. She alleged that Faustine, who represented herself as an agent of then Senator Emmanuel "Manny" Pacquiao (Sen. Pacquiao), inquired if she could book airline tickets for 96 passengers who would participate in the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League to be held in Calgary, Canada.
On December 23, 2019, Faustine went to GHT's office to purchase the 96 tickets, issuing a Manager's Check worth PHP 374,000.00, a regular check worth PHP 6 million, and a postdated check of PHP 4,148,194.00, or a total of PHP 10,522,194.00. The 96 airline tickets were released to her on the same date. On December 29, 2019, Faustine returned to book 25 additional tickets under the same itinerary and later offered another postdated check worth PHP 3,559,606.25.
Prior to the maturity of the two postdated checks, Faustine requested that Johanna put the checks on hold as Sen. Pacquiao would allegedly deposit the total amount. No deposit was made, and when GHT encashed the two checks, both were dishonored for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
Johanna accused Faustine of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) and (d) of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In its Resolution dated August 18, 2020, the City Prosecutor found probable cause for two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 but found insufficient evidence for Estafa. Two Informations were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The prosecution then filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the issuance of a PHDO before the RTC, which was granted on October 7, 2020. The RTC later denied Faustine's Motion to Lift/Recall the PHDO.
The Issue
Whether the RTC properly sustained the PHDO against Faustine, given that the prosecutor found no probable cause to indict her for Estafa, a crime within the RTC's jurisdiction, while an appeal on that finding was pending before the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of Faustine. Its dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Orders, dated March 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, of Branch 50, Regional Trial Court, Manila, in Spec. Proc. No. R-MNL-2006070-SP, are REVERSED. The Precautionary Hold Departure Order issued against Faustine Feliz Abad is LIFTED. SO ORDERED."
By the Numbers
- June 3, 2020 — Johanna filed the Complaint-Affidavit
- 96 airline tickets purchased on December 23, 2019
- PHP 374,000.00 — Manager's Check
- PHP 6 million — regular check
- PHP 4,148,194.00 — postdated check
- PHP 10,522,194.00 — total of the three checks
- PHP 3,559,606.25 — second postdated check
- PHP 7,593,993.50 — total actual damage allegedly suffered by GHT
- October 7, 2020 — RTC granted the PHDO
- March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2021 — reversed RTC Orders
The Court's Reasoning
The Court weighed Faustine's freedom to travel, guaranteed by the Constitution, against a speculative or contingent legal threat that she may be charged in court for Estafa pending the decision of the DOJ Secretary, holding that the former must prevail. It reiterated its policy of non-interference in the prosecutor's conduct of preliminary investigation, citing that courts as a rule must defer to the prosecutor's finding and determination of probable cause.
The Court explained that the prosecutor had already determined the absence of probable cause regarding the Estafa allegation, and that finding should have been given weight by the RTC. Although the RTC preliminarily determines probable cause for a PHDO based only on the complaint and its attachments, that determination is without prejudice to the prosecutor's resolution.
The Court noted that upholding the PHDO would circumvent existing rules on regular Hold Departure Orders (HDOs). Under Circular No. 39-97, only RTCs, not First Level Courts, may issue regular HDOs for criminal cases within their jurisdiction. Since the two Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were filed before the MeTC, which cannot issue a regular HDO, the prosecution's application for a PHDO circumvented the Circular. Upon filing of the Informations, the guidelines on regular HDOs applied, and there was no probable cause requiring restriction of Faustine's right to travel abroad.
The Court concluded it was error for the RTC to deny the motion to lift the PHDO merely because an appeal to the prosecutor's Resolution was pending with the DOJ Secretary. The RTC should have reevaluated Johanna's Complaint-Affidavit and its attachments, given that the prosecutor found no probable cause for a crime within the RTC's jurisdiction.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 256320, penned by Associate Justice Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.