Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Pasig City
Branch 167

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 155747-PSG
- versus –

JULIE T. CHOA,
Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION and URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION

To DEFER ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST
and
For JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

ACCUSED, by counsel, via special appearance, most

respectfully states that:

1. On 12 January 2015, upon verification with this

Honorable Court, the Accused learned that an Information against her
for Estafa was filed with this Honorable Court last 09 January 2015.

2. The records also disclosed that the said Information was

filed by the City Prosecution Office of Pasig City with the Office of
the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City on 06 January
2015.

3. The foregoing facts shocked the Accused and counsel in

view of the fact that she received the Resolution dated 28 November
2014 rendered by the Pasig City Prosecution Office in I.S. No. XV-14-
INV-14E-02509—which gave rise to the filing of the instant case—
only last 07 January 2015.

1
 4. It is most respectfully manifested that such precipitate
filing of the aforementioned Information is violative of the right of the
Accused to due process as well as his right to a full and complete
preliminary investigation.

5. The substantive right of herein Accused to a motion for

reconsideration is guaranteed by Section 3 of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 70 (03 July 2000) which states thus:

SEC. 3. Period of appeal.- The appeal shall be

taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the resolution, or the denial of the motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation if one has
been filed within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the assailed decision. Only one
motion for reconsideration shall be allowed
(emphasis and underscoring supplied).

6. The Supreme Court ruled in Duterte v. Sandiganbayan

(289 SCRA 721, 737-738 [1998]) that the right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a
criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some
other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a
substantive right. To deny the accused’s claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right
to due process (Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354 [1980]; Go
v. CA, 206 SCRA 138 [1992]).”

7. As in the case of the Office of the Ombudsman as held by

the Supreme Court in Torralba v. Sandiganbayan (230 SCRA 33
[1994]), the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an integral part of
the preliminary investigation proper. There is no dispute that the
Information was filed without first affording petitioner-accused his
right to file a motion for reconsideration. The denial thereof is
tantamount to a denial of the right itself to a preliminary
investigation. This fact alone already renders preliminary
investigation conducted in this case incomplete. The inevitable
conclusion is that the petitioner (in the said case) was not only
effectively denied the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration
of the Ombudsman’s final resolution but also deprived of his right to
a full preliminary investigation preparatory to the filing of the
information against him.

2
 8. On account of the foregoing, the Honorable Court is most
respectfully asked to DEFER the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest
against the Accused herein.

Prayer For Judicial Determination Of Probable Cause

9. In accordance with the express provisions of Section 6 (a)

of Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Honorable
Court is likewise respectfully asked to conduct a judicial
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest against the Accused with full opportunity for the Accused to
be heard on the matter.

10. The Accused most respectfully prays that this Honorable

Court exercise its discretion and re-evaluate the finding of probable
cause by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City, in accordance
with Section 6 (a) of Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, which provides thus:

SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.—

(a) By the Regional Trial Court.—Within ten
days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence. He may immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant to
a warrant issued by the judge who conducted
the preliminary investigation or when the
complaint or information was filed pursuant
to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on
the existence of probable cause, the judge may
order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice and the
issue must be resolved by the court within
thirty (30) days from the filing of the
complaint or information.

11. It is most respectfully prayed that a re-evaluation of the

evidence be made on account of the fact that a) the Honorable Public

3
Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the above-captioned case; b)
Private Complainant’s Compliant-Affidavit is inconsistent and
inaccurate and full of lies; c) the elements of Estafa do not exist in this
case; and d) if at all there is any liability on the part of the Accused,
the same is only civil and not criminal in nature.

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE.

12. The subject matter of this criminal charge -- particularly

those covered by Purchase Orders Nos. 5, 6 and 7 -- were delivered at
Complainant’s office located at 36 G West Avenue, West Triangle,
Quezon City, hence, depriving the Honorable Prosecutor, as well as
this Honorable Court jurisdiction over alleged criminal act.

13. A careful perusal of the Sales Orders dated July 17, 2013,
July 19, 2013, and July 31, 2013 and attached by the Private
Complainant to his Complaint-Affidavit as his Annex “E-41”, Annex
“E-44” and Annex “E-48”, respectively, would readily show that the
glass materials covered by Purchase Orders Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were all
delivered at Private Complainant’s office in Quezon City. As proof
thereof, there appears on the face of each of the said Sales Orders the
following notation: “WEST AVE”.

PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S
COMPLIANT-AFFIDAVIT IS
INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE
AND FULL OF LIES

14. Private Complainant claims that he “issued seven (7)

purchase orders for the 8mm, clear and tempered glass” to the
Accused and that after which the latter delivered to him “glasses of
greenish shade”. This is a malicious and blatant lie. The Accused
never met, seen nor dealt with the Private Complainant.

15. It is worthy to mention that Private Complainant did not

order the glass materials personally from the Accused but from The
Pacific Pearl Glass Corporation (“Pacific”) – an entity having a
separate juridical personality. The mere fact that the Accused is one
of the directors of Pacific, without more, does not suffice to hold her
criminally liable for the alleged Estafa.

4
 THE ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA DO NOT
EXIST IN THIS CASE.

16. To begin with, no evidence of deceit or fraud was ever

presented by the Private Complainant.

17. Moreover, since the Accused have never met and dealt
with the Private Complainant, it is unimaginable how the Accused
employed deceit and fraud to him.

18. The Complaint-Affidavit charges the Accused of Estafa

with unfaithfulness, punishable under Article 315, Par. 2 (b) which
states thus:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person

who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:

xxx

2. By means of any of the following false

pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:

b) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight

of anything pertaining to his art or business.

xxx

19. The elements of Estafa with unfaithfulness are the

following: a) That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
something of value, (b) That he alters its substance, quantity, or
quality; and c) That damage or prejudice is caused to another.

20. None of the foregoing elements is present.

21. First and foremost, the Accused has no onerous

obligation to deliver something of value to the Private Complainant.
It is important to note that the Private Complainant dealt with Pacific
and not with the Accused.

5
 22. Second, no proof was offered by the Private Complainant
to show that the Accused altered the glass panels delivered by Pacific
to the Private Complainant. Even the Honorable Prosecutor, in his
Resolution, failed to discuss how the alteration – an important
element in this kind of estafa -- was committed by the Accused.

23. Lastly, if ever Private Complainant suffered damages, it is

because of his own negligence and wrongdoing for not informing
Pacific that he would use the glass panels in one project alone.

IF AT ALL THERE IS ANY LIABILITY ON

THE PART OF THE ACCUSED, THE SAME
IS ONLY CIVIL AND NOT CRIMINAL IN
NATURE.

24. It is interesting to mention the claim of Private

Complainant in his Complaint-Affidavit that he is entitled to
compensatory, moral and exemplary damages. It only goes to show
that the primary reason why this case was filed by the Private
Complainant is just to secure civil damages from the Accused.

25. Upon the foregoing factual backdrop, the Honorable

Court is respectfully urged to re-evaluate the evidence in the instant
case and withhold or, at the very least, hold in abeyance the issuance
of a Warrant of Arrest against the Accused until she has been heard.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that:

1. The Honorable Court DEFER the issuance of a Warrant of

Arrest against the Accused herein until the completion of the full
preliminary investigation in I.S. No. XV-14-INV-14E-02509;

2. The Honorable Court exercise its discretion and re-

evaluate the finding of probable cause by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Pasig, in accordance with Section 6 (a) of Rule 112 of
the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure and, for the said purpose,
CONDUCT a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause
with opportunity for the Accused to be heard.

6
 Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City for Pasig City, 12 January 2015.

OLAVERE PANO COHERCO AND NGO

Ground Floor Felmar Building
131-A Roosevelt Avenue
1104 Quezon City
Telephone No.: (02) 9492601
E-mail: [email protected]

By:

ERWIN N. OLAVERE
Counsel for the Accused
PTR No. 9079868, 1-07-14, Quezon City
IBP No. 925735, 1-07-14, Quezon City
Roll No. 59733
MCLE Compliance No. IV-14714, 3-25-13

NOTICE

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Pasig City, Branch 167

The Office of the City Prosecutor

Pasig City

Private Complainant

Gentlemen:

Please take notice that the Accused, through undersigned

counsel, is submitting the instant Urgent Motion for the consideration
and approval of the Honorable Court on 23 January 2015 at 8:30 AM.

7
 ERWIN N. OLAVERE

Copy furnished:

The Office of the City Prosecutor

Pasig City

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

A copy of this Urgent Motion was served on the Private

Complainant, through counsel, via registered mail as the Firm
temporarily lacks the manpower to effect personal service thereof.
On the other hand, the undersigned counsel has other equally
important legal matters to attend to which prevent him from
effecting such personal service.

ERWIN N. OLAVERE

Copy furnished via registered mail:

Armando N. Habaluyas
Private Complainant
707 Emerald St., Posadas Village
Muntinlupa City