Criminal Procedure - Preliminary Investigation

JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE, Pe##oner v. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, Respondents [G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010]
THIRD DIVISION

Facts:
PeEEoner was, by InformaEon of January 16, 2007, charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of MakaE City. Branch 150 to which the case was raed, presided by Judge Elmo Alameda, forthwith issued a commitment order against peEEoner who was placed under police custody while conned at the MakaE Medical Center. A[er peEEoner posted a 40,000 cash bond which the trial court approved, he was released from detenEon, and his arraignment was set on January 24, 2007. The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas led, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus MoEon praying, inter alia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvesEgaEon to determine the proper oense.

The RTC therea[er issued the (1) Order of January 24, 2007 deferring peEEoners arraignment and allowing the prosecuEon to conduct a reinvesEgaEon to determine the proper oense and submit a recommendaEon within 30 days from its incepEon, inter alia; and (2) Order of January 31, 2007 denying reconsideraEon of the rst order. PeEEoner assailed these orders via cerEorari and prohibiEon before the Court of Appeals. PeEEoner then led a moEon to defer from on acEng on the prosecuEons recommendaEon unEl the CA resolves the injucEon he is seeking or to grant him Eme to comment on the prosecutors recommendaEon and therea[er set a hearing for the judicial determinaEon of probable cause. PeEEoner also separately moved for the inhibiEon of Judge Alameda with prayer to defer acEon on the admission of the Amended InformaEon. The RTC nonetheless issued orders to admit the Amended InformaEon for murder and issued a warrant of arrest for the peEEoner. Also, the arraignment was set for February 13, 2007. Therea[er, the peEEoner quesEoned the two (2) said orders before the CA which the Appellate Court denied hence this peEEon.

Issue:
RTC. Whether or not the private complainants can cause the reinvesEgaEon when the informaEon was already led before the

Held:
SecEon 6 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court reads:
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an oense which requires a preliminary invesEgaEon, the complaint or informaEon may be led by a prosecutor without need of such invesEgaEon provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with exisEng rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be led by the oended party or a peace ocer directly with the proper court on the basis of the adavit of the oended party or arresEng ocer or person. Before the complaint or informaEon is led, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary invesEgaEon in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of ArEcle 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the invesEgaEon must be terminated within [een (15) days from its incepEon. A[er the ling of the complaint or informaEon in court without a preliminary invesEgaEon, the accused may, within ve (5) days from the Eme he learns of its ling, ask for a preliminary invesEgaEon with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule. (underscoring supplied)

Page 1 of 2

Criminal Procedure - Preliminary Investigation

A preliminary invesEgaEon is required before the ling of a complaint or informaEon for an oense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to ne. As an excepEon, the rules provide that there is no need for a preliminary invesEgaEon in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of oense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted.

Inquest is dened as an informal and summary invesEgaEon conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benet of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. The Court held that the private complainant can move for reinvesEgaEon, subject to and in light of the ensuing disquisiEon.

All criminal acEons commenced by a complaint or informaEon shall be prosecuted under the direcEon 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 reinvesEgaEon of the case a[er the informaEon had been led in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecuEon of the case. Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal acEon, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can le a moEon for reinvesEgaEon. In fact, the DOJ instructs that before the arraignment of the accused, trial prosecutors must examine the InformaEon vis- -vis the resoluEon of the invesEgaEng prosecutor in order to make the necessary correcEons or revisions and to ensure that the informaEon is sucient in form and substance. The prosecuEon of crimes appertains to the execuEve department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. Hence, once the trial court grants the prosecuEons moEon for reinvesEgaEon, the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government. Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecuEon is thus equipped with discreEon wide and far reaching regarding the disposiEon thereof, subject to the trial courts approval of the resulEng proposed course of acEon. More importantly, reinvesEgaEon is required in cases involving a substanEal amendment of the informaEon. Due process of law demands that no substanEal amendment of an informaEon may be admined without conducEng another or a new preliminary invesEgaEon. Considering that another or a new preliminary invesEgaEon is required, the fact that what was conducted in the present case was a reinvesEgaEon does not invalidate the substanEal amendment of the InformaEon. There is no substanEal disEncEon between a preliminary invesEgaEon and a reinvesEgaEon since both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objecEve of determining whether there exists sucient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been commined and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. What is essenEal is that peEEoner was placed on guard to defend himself from the charge of murder a[er the claimed circumstances were made known to him as early as the rst moEon. PeEEoner did not, however, make much of the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the proposed amended charge. Despite noEce of hearing, peEEoner opted to merely observe the proceedings and declined to acEvely parEcipate, even with extreme cauEon, in the reinvesEgaEon. Mercado v. Court of Appeals states that the rules do not even require, as a condiEon sine qua non to the validity of a preliminary invesEgaEon, the presence of the respondent as long as eorts to reach him were made and an opportunity to controvert the complainants evidence was accorded him. The allegaEon of lack of substanEal or material new evidence deserves no credence, because new pieces of evidence are not prerequisites for a valid conduct of reinvesEgaEon. It is not material that no new maner or evidence was presented during the reinvesEgaEon of the case. It should be stressed that reinvesEgaEon, as the word itself implies, is merely a repeat invesEgaEon of the case. New maners or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvesEgaEon, which is simply a chance for the prosecutor to review and re-evaluate its ndings and the evidence already submined. WHEREFORE, the peEEon is DENIED. The assailed Decision and ResoluEon of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97761 are AFFIRMED.

Page 2 of 2