CRIMPRO RULE112

Title: GRNo.182677
LEVISTEVS.ALAMEDA Date:August3,2010
Ponente:CARPIOMORALES,J
JOSEANTONIOC.LEVISTE,Petitioner, HON.ELMOM.ALAMEDA,HON.RAULM.GONZALEZ,HON.
EMMANUELY.VELASCO,HEIRSOFTHELATERAFAELDELAS
ALAS,respondents.
NatureoftheCase: Petitionerassailsviathe presentpetitionforreviewtheDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP
No.97761thataffirmedthetrialcourtsOrdersanddeniedthemotionforreconsideration,respectively.
FACTS
Petitioner waschargedwithhomicideforthedeathofRafaeldelasAlasbeforethe RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMakati City.Branch150to
which the case was raffled, presided by JudgeElmoAlameda,forthwithissuedacommitmentorderagainstpetitioner who wasplaced
underpolicecustodywhileconfinedattheMakatiMedicalCenter.

After petitioner posted a cash bond which the trial court approved, he wasreleasedfromdetention,andhisarraignmentwasset.The
privatecomplainantsheirsofDe lasAlasfiled,with theconformityofthepublicprosecutor,anUrgent OmnibusMotionpraying,interalia,
for thedefermentoftheproceedingsto allowthepublicprosecutortoreexaminetheevidence onrecordorto conductareinvestigation
todeterminetheproperoffense.

The RTC thereafter issued an Order deferring petitioners arraignment and allowing the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation to
determine the proper offense and submit a recommendation within 30 days from its inception,inter alia; andanotherOrderdenying
reconsiderationofthefirstorder.PetitionerassailedtheseordersviacertiorariandprohibitionbeforetheCourtofAppeals.

Meantime,petitionerfiledanUrgentExParteManifestationandMotionbeforethetrialcourttodefer actingonthepublicprosecutors
recommendation on the proper offense until after the appellate courtresolves his applicationfor injunctivereliefs,oralternatively,to
granthimtime tocomment ontheprosecutorsrecommendation and thereafter set ahearingforthejudicialdeterminationofprobable
cause. Petitioneralsoseparatelymoved forthe inhibitionofJudgeAlamedawithprayertodeferactionontheadmissionoftheAmended
Information.

Thetrialcourtnonethelessissuedtheotherassailedorders,viz:(1)OrderofFebruary7,2007thatadmittedthe AmendedInformationfor
murder and directed the issuance of awarrantofarrest;and (2)OrderofFebruary8,2007whichset thearraignmenton February13,
2007.Petitionerquestionedthesetwoordersviasupplementalpetitionbeforetheappellatecourt.
Uponarraignment, thepetitionerrefusedtoplead.The trialcourtenteredthepleaof"notguilty"for him.Priortothis,thepetitionerfiled
anUrgentApplication forAdmission toBailExAbundantiCautela,whichthe trialcourtgrantedonthegroundthattheevidenceofguiltof
thecrime ofmurderisnotstrong.ThetrialcourtwentontotrythepetitionerundertheAmendedInformation.Then,thetrialcourtfound
thepetitionerguiltyofhomicide.Fromthetrialcourt'sdecision,thepetitionerfiledanappealtotheCA.Theappellatecourt confirmedthe
decisionofthetrialcourt.Thepetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationwasdenied.Hence,thispetitiontotheSC.

PetitionersContentions:
1. Respondent did nothavethe rightto cause thereinvestigationofthe criminalcasewhenthecriminalinformation had already
been filed with the lower court. Hence,theCAcommittedgrave error infindingthat respondent judgedid notactwithgrave
abuseofdiscretioningrantingsuchreinvestigationdespitenobasisintherulesofcourt.
2. Respondent judge acted withgraveabuse ofdiscretionin admitting stateprosecutorVelasco's amended information, issuing a
warrant of arrest and setting the case for arraignment consideringthatthevalidity andlegalityofhisorders whichledtothe
questionablereinvestigationandillegalamendedinformation.
3. ConsideringthatProsecutorVelasco'sfindingsinhisresolution areblatantlybasedon merespeculationsandconjectures,without
any substantial or material new evidence being adduced during the reinvestigation, respondent judge should have at least
allowedthepetitionersmotionforahearingforjudicialdeterminationofprobablecause.

ISSUE/S
I. Whetherornotrespondenthavetherighttocausethereinvestigationofthecriminalcase.YES
II. Whetheror not thetrialcourterredfor not conductinga hearing forjudicialdeterminationofprobablecause,considering
thelackofsubstantialormaterialnewevidenceadducedduringthereinvestigation.NO
RATIO
1.Yes.Petitioner posits that theprosecutionhasnorightundertheRulesto seek fromthetrialcourtaninvestigationorreevaluationof
the case except through a petition for review before the Department of Justice(DOJ).Incaseswhen anaccusedisarrestedwithouta
warrant,petitionercontendsthat theremedyofpreliminaryinvestigationbelongsonlytotheaccused.Thecourtheldthatthe contention
lacksmerit.

A preliminaryinvestigationisrequiredbeforethefilingofacomplaintorinformationforanoffense wherethepenaltyprescribedbylawis
at least four years, two months and one day without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a
preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where
available,hasbeenconducted.

It is imperative to first take a closer lookatthe predicamentof both thearrestedpersonandtheprivatecomplainantduringthebrief

periodofinquest,tograsptherespectiveremediesavailabletothembeforeandafterthefilingofacomplaintorinformationincourt.

BEFORE THEFILINGOF COMPLAINTOR INFORMATIONIN COURT,theprivatecomplainantmay proceedincoordinatingwiththearresting

officerandtheinquestofficer during thelatters conductofinquest.Meanwhile,thearrestedpersonhastheoption to availofa15day
preliminary investigation,providedhedulysignsawaiver of anyobjectionagainstdelayinhisdeliverytotheproperjudicial authorities
under Article125 of theRevisedPenalCode. Forobviousreasons, thisremedyisnotavailabletotheprivatecomplainantsincehecannot
waivewhat hedoesnothave.The benefit oftheprovisionsof Article125,whichrequiresthefiling ofacomplaint orinformationwiththe
proper judicial authoritieswithintheapplicableperiod, belongstothe arrestedperson.The acceleratedprocess ofinquest,owingtoits
summarynature and theattendant riskofrunningagainstArticle125,endswitheitherthepromptfilingofan informationincourtorthe
immediatereleaseofthearrestedperson.Notably,therulesoninquestdonotprovideforamotionforreconsideration.

Contrary to petitioners position that private complainant should haveappealedtotheDOJ Secretary,suchremedy is not immediately
availableincasessubjectofinquest.Incasessubjectofinquest,therefore,theprivatepartyshould first availofapreliminary investigation
or reinvestigation, if any,beforeelevatingthemattertotheDOJSecretary.Incasetheinquest proceedingsyieldnoprobablecause, the
privatecomplainantmaypursuethecasethroughtheregularcourseofapreliminaryinvestigation.

ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT, the rules yet provide the accused with another opportunity to ask for a
preliminaryinvestigation withinfivedaysfromthe timehelearnsofits filing. TheRulesofCourtandthe NewRulesonInquestaresilent,
however, onwhethertheprivatecomplainantcouldinvoke,asrespondent heirsofthevictimdid inthepresentcase,asimilar rightto ask
forareinvestigation.

TheCourtholdsthattheprivatecomplainantcanmoveforreinvestigation,subjecttoandinlightoftheensuingdisquisition.
All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.Theprivatecomplainantinacriminal caseismerely awitnessandnotapartytothecaseandcannot,byhimself,ask forthe
reinvestigationofthe caseaftertheinformationhad beenfiledincourt, theproperpartyforthatbeingthepublicprosecutorwhohasthe
control of the prosecution of the case. Thus,incaseswheretheprivate complainant isallowedto intervenebycounsel in thecriminal
action,andisgrantedtheauthoritytoprosecute,theprivatecomplainant, bycounseland withtheconformityof thepublicprosecutor,
canfileamotionforreinvestigation.

Infact,theDOJinstructsthatbeforethearraignmentoftheaccused, trialprosecutors mustexaminetheInformationvisvistheresolution

ofthe investigatingprosecutor in order tomakethe necessary correctionsor revisionsandtoensure thattheinformation issufficientin
form and substance. The prosecution of crimes appertainstotheexecutive departmentof thegovernmentwhose principalpowerand
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. Anecessarycomponentofthispowerto executeourlawsistheright to
prosecutetheirviolators. Theright toprosecutevests theprosecutorwith awiderangeofdiscretionthediscretionofwhatandwhom to
charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. The prosecutions
discretion is not boundlessorinfinite, however.The standingprincipleisthatonceaninformationisfiledincourt, anyremedialmeasure
suchasareinvestigationmustbeaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt.

WhileAbugotal v.JudgeTiroheldthattoferretoutthetruth,atrial is tobepreferred toareinvestigation,theCourt thereinrecognized

thatatrialcourtmay,wheretheinterestofjusticesorequires,grantamotionforreinvestigationofacriminalcasependingbeforeit.

Once the trial court grants theprosecution'smotion forreinvestigation,the formeris deemedtohave deferred tothe authorityofthe
prosecutorial arm of the Government. Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus equipped with
discretion wideandfar reachingregardingthedispositionthereof,subjecttothetrialcourtsapprovaloftheresultingproposed courseof
action.

Sinceareinvestigationmay entaila modificationofthecriminalinformationaswhathappenedinthepresentcase,theCourtsholding is

bolstered bytherule onamendmentofaninformationunderSection14, Rule110of theRulesofCourt.Infine,beforethe accusedenters
aplea,aformalor substantial amendmentofthe complaint orinformationmaybe madewithoutleaveofcourt.Aftertheentryof aplea,
only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After
arraignment,asubstantialamendmentisproscribedexceptifthesameisbeneficialtotheaccused.

Itmustbe clarifiedthoughthatnotalldefects inaninformationarecurableby amendmentpriortoentryofplea.Aninformationwhich is

void ab initio cannotbeamended toobviatea ground forquashal.An amendmentwhichoperates tovest jurisdictionuponthetrial court is
likewiseimpermissible.

Considering thegeneralrule thatan informationmaybeamendedevenin substanceand evenwithoutleaveof court atanytimebefore

entry of plea, does it mean that the conduct of a reinvestigation at that stage is a mere superfluity? It is not.Anyremedialmeasure

springingfromthereinvestigationbeita completedispositionoranintermediatemodificationofthe chargeiseventuallyaddressed tothe
sound discretion ofthetrial court,whichmustmakeanindependent evaluationor assessmentof themeritsofthe case.Sincethe trial
court would ultimately make the determination on the proposed course of action, it is for the prosecution to consider whether a
reinvestigationisnecessarytoadduceandreviewtheevidenceforpurposesofbuttressingtheappropriatemotiontobefiledincourt.

Moreimportantly, reinvestigation is requiredincasesinvolvingasubstantialamendmentoftheinformation.Dueprocessoflawdemands

that no substantial amendment of an information may be admitted without conductinganotheror anew preliminaryinvestigation.In
Matalam v.The2nd DivisionoftheSandiganbayan,the Courtruledthatasubstantialamendmentinaninformationentitlesan accusedto
anotherpreliminaryinvestigation,unlesstheamendedinformationcontainsachargerelatedtoorisincludedintheoriginalInformation.

2. NO. In his third assignment of error, petitioner faults the trial court for not conducting, at the very least, a hearing for judicial
determination of probable cause, considering the lack ofsubstantialormaterialnewevidenceadducedduringthe reinvestigation.The
courtheldthatpetitionersargumentisspecious.

There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial.Theexecutivedetermination ofprobablecauseisone
made duringpreliminaryinvestigation.It is afunctionthatproperlypertainstothepublicprosecutorwho isgivenabroad discretionto
determinewhetherprobablecauseexists andto chargethosewhomhebelieves tohavecommittedthecrimeasdefinedbylawand thus
should beheldfortrial. Otherwisestated,suchofficialhas thequasijudicial authoritytodeterminewhetherornotacriminalcasemustbe
filed in court. Whether that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether he has made a correct
ascertainmentoftheexistence ofprobablecauseinacase, isamatterthatthe trialcourtitself doesnotandmaynotbe compelledtopass
upon. Thejudicialdeterminationofprobablecauseis one made bythejudgeto ascertain whether a warrant of arrest shouldbeissued
againstthe accused.Thejudgemustsatisfyhimselfthatbasedontheevidencesubmitted,thereisnecessityforplacingtheaccusedunder
custody inorder not tofrustratetheendsofjustice.If thejudge findsnoprobable cause,the judgecannot beforcedtoissue thearrest
warrant.Paragraph(a),Section5,Rule112oftheRulesofCourtoutlinestheproceduretobefollowedbytheRTC.

Tomovethe court toconduct ajudicialdeterminationofprobable causeisameresuperfluity,forwithorwithout suchmotion,thejudge

isdutyboundto personallyevaluate theresolutionofthepublicprosecutorandthesupportingevidence.Infact,thetaskofthepresiding
judge whenthe Information is filedwiththecourtisfirstandforemostto determinethe existenceornonexistenceofprobablecause for
thearrestoftheaccused.Therules donotrequirecasesto besetforhearingtodetermine probablecausefortheissuanceofawarrantof
arrest of the accused before any warrant may be issued. Petitioner thus cannot, as a matter of right, insist on a hearing for judicial
determinationofprobable cause.Certainly,petitionercannot determinebeforehandhowcursoryorexhaustivethe[judge's]examination
ofthe recordsshouldbe[sincet]heextent ofthejudges examinationdependsontheexerciseofhissounddiscretionasthecircumstances
ofthecaserequire.

Theallegationof lackofsubstantialormaterialnewevidencedeservesnocredence, becausenew piecesofevidencearenotprerequisites

for a valid conductofreinvestigation.Itisnotmaterialthatno newmatter orevidencewaspresentedduringthe reinvestigation ofthe
case. It should be stressed that reinvestigation, as theworditselfimplies,ismerelyarepeatinvestigationofthe case.Newmatters or
evidence arenotprerequisitesfor areinvestigation,which issimply achancefortheprosecutortoreviewandreevaluateits findingsand
theevidencealreadysubmitted.

Moreover,under Rule45oftheRulesofCourt,onlyquestionsoflawmayberaised in, andbesubjectof,apetitionforreviewon certiorari

sincethisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.TheCourtcannotthusreview theevidence adducedbythe partiesontheissueof theabsence or
presenceofprobable cause,asthereexists noexceptionalcircumstances towarrantafactualreview.Inapetitionforcertiorari, likethat
filed by petitioner before the appellate court, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only errors of
jurisdiction.Itisnottostrayatwillandresolvequestionsandissuesbeyond itscompetence,suchasan errorofjudgment.Thecourts duty
inthe pertinentcase is confinedtodeterminingwhether theexecutiveand judicialdeterminationofprobable causewasdonewithoutor
inexcessofjurisdictionorwith graveabuseofdiscretion.Althoughit is possiblethat errormaybecommittedinthedischargeoflawful
functions, this does not render the act amenable to correction and amendment bythe extraordinary remedyofcertiorari,absentany
showingofgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoexcessofjurisdiction.
RULING
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.97761areAFFIRMED.

2S201617(CAPIO)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182677.htm