FACTS:

Private complainant Manuel Dy filed a criminal complaint against petitioners Ma. Gracia Hao, Danny Hao, and Victor Ngo for syndicated estafa. Dy alleged that Ngo, who was the manager of Asiatrust Bank, advised him to invest his money in State Resources Development Corporation, a company recommended by Ma. Gracia Hao. Relying on the assurances of Ngo and Gracia, Dy initially invested P10,000,000.00 in State Resources, which earned him promised interests. At Gracia's urging, Dy increased his investment to almost P100,000,000.00. However, all the checks issued by Gracia representing Dy's earnings were dishonored. Dy later discovered that Ngo had resigned and Gracia had invested his money in her husband Danny's construction and realty business. Despite promises to pay, the petitioners did not return Dy's money. Dy filed a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the petitioners and several others. The trial court issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners, who filed a motion to defer arraignment and lift the warrants of arrest. The trial court denied the motions, and the denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking the reversal of the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the petitioners' motions to defer arraignment and to lift warrant of arrest.

2. Whether the trial court judge complied with the requirement to personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest.

3. Whether the elements of estafa by means of deceit are present in this case.

4. Whether syndicated estafa was committed.

5. Whether the judicial determination of probable cause is within the authority of the public prosecutor or the judge.

6. Whether the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners are valid and proper.

7. Whether simple estafa is necessarily included in syndicated estafa.

8. Whether the arraignment of the petitioners should be suspended indefinitely due to a pending petition for review.

9. Whether the delay in resolving the petitioners' petition for review violates their right to have their arraignment suspended.

RULING:

1. The Court denies the petition, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the petitioners' motions. The Court clarifies that the review of a Rule 65 petition focuses on jurisdictional errors and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion, rather than strictly determining whether the trial court's denial of the motions was legally correct.

2. The Court finds that the trial court judge complied with the requirement to personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest. The judge made a personal evaluation of the factual circumstances and concluded that there was probable cause to apprehend the petitioners for their commission of a criminal offense.

3. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are present in this case. The petitioners induced the complainant to invest in State Resources by promising higher returns, but they used the invested money for a different purpose. The petitioners' false representations and promises deceived the complainant and led him to part with his money, resulting in damage. Therefore, probable cause exists to arrest the petitioners for estafa by means of deceit.

4. Syndicated estafa was not committed. Although the first two elements of syndicated estafa (estafa or swindling was committed by a syndicate of five or more persons) are present, the third element is lacking. There is no evidence to show that aside from the complainant, the petitioners also solicited investments from other people. Therefore, only simple estafa by means of deceit was committed, not syndicated estafa.

5. The judicial determination of probable cause is within the authority of the judge, while the determination of whether a criminal case should be filed in court is within the quasi-judicial authority of the public prosecutor. The trial court is not compelled to pass upon the correctness of the public prosecutor's ascertainment of probable cause.

6. The warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners remain valid and proper since there is probable cause for the crime of simple estafa and the petitioners have probably committed it.

7. Simple estafa is necessarily included in syndicated estafa, as the essential ingredients of the former form part of those constituting the latter. A formal amendment of the filed information under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court is necessary.

8. The arraignment of the petitioners should not be suspended indefinitely. The right to have the arraignment suspended is not an unqualified right. The deferment of the arraignment is limited to a period of 60 days from the filing of the petition for review.

9. The delay in resolving the petitioners' petition for review by the Department of Justice (DOJ) exceeded the 60-day period allowed by the Rules. Thus, the petitioners' motion to suspend their arraignment lacks any legal basis.

PRINCIPLES:

• In a Rule 65 review, the Court focuses on determining whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion, rather than strictly determining whether the trial court's decision was legally correct.

• A judge is mandated to personally determine the existence of probable cause after personal evaluation of the prosecutor's resolution and the supporting evidence for the crime charged.

• The judge's determination of probable cause at the warrant issuance stage only requires the judge to determine the probability, not certainty, of the accused's guilt. The judge does not need to conduct a de novo hearing but only needs to review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial evidence.

• Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest must be personally determined by the judge and cannot be based solely on the prosecutor's findings.

• Estafa has elements of false pretense, execution of the false pretense prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, reliance by the victim on the false pretense, and resulting damage.

• Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, which deceives or is intended to deceive another, causing them to act to their legal injury.

• Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested.

• Syndicated estafa requires estafa or swindling by a syndicate of five or more persons, resulting in the misappropriation of funds contributed by stockholders, members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers associations, or funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

• The judicial determination of probable cause is made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.

• The determination of whether a criminal case should be filed in court is within the quasi-judicial authority of the public prosecutor.

• Simple estafa is necessarily included in syndicated estafa when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.

• The right of an accused to have the arraignment suspended is not an unqualified right and is limited to a period of 60 days from the filing of the petition for review.

• The delay in resolving a petition for review beyond the 60-day period violates the accused's right to have the arraignment suspended.