INQUEST (cases # 1-2)

People vs Panayangan

February 16, 2015 G.R. No. 195850

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_195850_2015.html

Gist: The issue of violation of fundamental rights cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
without offending the basic rules of f air play, justice and due process. The infractions of the
Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession during custodial
investigation.

Facts: The appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs)
and 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of RA 9165 and was arrested through a buy bust
operation. He was then subjected to an inquest. In the RTC, he interposed the defense of denial
and extortion. He was convicted. On appeal, he questioned the validity of the inquest
proceedings claiming that he was not afforded a counsel.

Issue: WON there is a violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to due process as he was
allegedly not assisted by counsel during the investigation and inquest proceedings.

Ruling: No, this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without offending the basic
rules of f air play, justice and due process. Besides, the fact that he was not assisted by counsel
during the investigation and inquest proceedings does not in any way affect his culpability. It
has already been held that "the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible
only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation." Here,
appellant's conviction was based not on his alleged uncounseled confession or admission but on
the testimony of the prosecution witness.

Leviste vs Alameda

August 3, 2010 G.R. No. 182677

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182677.htm

Gist: In cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with
the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation.
Facts: Petitioner (Leviste) was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas. After
posting a bond, petitioner was released and his arraignment was set. The private complainants
(heirs of de las Alas) filed with the conformity of the public prosecutor an Urgent Omnibus
Motion praying for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-
examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense
to be charged.

Issue: WON the private complainants (heirs) have the right to cause the reinvestigation of the
criminal case when the criminal information had already been filed with the lower court.

Ruling: Yes. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for reinvestigation, subject
to and in light of the ensuing disquisition.

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the public prosecutor. The private complainant in a criminal case is
merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of
the case after the information had been filed in court, the proper party for that being the public
prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case. Thus, in cases where the private
complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the
authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the
public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation.