Leviste vs. Alameda

A private complainant, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, may file a motion for reinvestigation before the arraignment of the accused; an amendment of an information from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment that requires a new preliminary investigation or reinvestigation; an accused who applies for bail does not waive the right to challenge the validity of a reinvestigation or the amended information provided such objections are raised before entering a plea; and a judge is not required to conduct a hearing for the judicial determination of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest, but must personally evaluate the prosecutor's resolution and supporting evidence.

The case arose from the fatal shooting of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007. Petitioner Jose Antonio C. Leviste was arrested and charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. The heirs of the victim sought to upgrade the charge to murder through reinvestigation, leading to procedural disputes regarding the authority to seek reinvestigation after the filing of an information, the nature of amendments to the information, and the requirements for judicial determination of probable cause.

• On January 12, 2007, Rafael de las Alas died from a gunshot wound.
• On January 16, 2007, an Information for homicide was filed against petitioner Jose Antonio C. Leviste before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 150.
• The RTC issued a commitment order against petitioner, who was confined at the Makati Medical Center while under police custody.
• Petitioner posted a P40,000 cash bond approved by the trial court, was released from detention, and his arraignment was set for January 24, 2007.
• The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, praying for the deferment of proceedings to allow reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.
• The RTC issued an Order on January 24, 2007, deferring arraignment and allowing the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation, and an Order on January 31, 2007, denying reconsideration.
• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals assailing these orders.
• Meanwhile, the RTC issued an Order on February 7, 2007, admitting an Amended Information for murder and directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and an Order on February 8, 2007, setting the arraignment for February 13, 2007.
• Petitioner filed a supplemental petition before the Court of Appeals challenging these subsequent orders.
• On March 21, 2007, arraignment proceeded wherein petitioner refused to enter a plea, prompting the trial court to enter a plea of "not guilty" for him.
• On February 23, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Application for Admission to Bail ex abundanti cautela, which the trial court granted on May 21, 2007, fixing bail at P300,000 after finding that the evidence of guilt for murder is not strong.
• The trial court subsequently rendered judgment on January 14, 2009, finding petitioner guilty of homicide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
• Petitioner appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals and applied for bail pending appeal, which was denied and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 189122 on March 17, 2010.

• The private complainant had no right to cause reinvestigation after the criminal information had already been filed, as this remedy is not provided in the Rules of Court and should only be sought through a petition for review before the Department of Justice.
• The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended information for murder, issuing a warrant of arrest, and setting the case for arraignment while the validity of the orders allowing reinvestigation was pending resolution by the Court of Appeals.
• The findings of the prosecutor in the reinvestigation were based on mere speculations and conjectures without substantial or material new evidence being adduced.
• The trial court should have conducted a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause before issuing the warrant of arrest.
• The amendment from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment that requires a new preliminary investigation.
• The haste in the proceedings indicates bias on the part of the trial judge.

• The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition was rendered moot by the trial court's judgment convicting the petitioner, and that the petitioner waived his objections by actively participating in the trial without previously invoking his objections.
• The prosecution has the discretion to determine the proper offense and may seek reinvestigation with the conformity of the private complainant.
• The amendment from homicide to murder was proper and supported by the evidence.
• The trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition had become moot and academic by virtue of the trial court's judgment of conviction.
  • Whether the petitioner waived his right to challenge the reinvestigation and amended information by applying for bail and actively participating in the trial.
  • Whether certiorari lies to challenge the trial court's orders allowing reinvestigation and admitting the amended information.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a private complainant has the right to seek reinvestigation after the filing of an information in court.
  • Whether the amendment of the information from homicide to murder constitutes a substantial amendment requiring a new preliminary investigation.
  • Whether the trial court was required to conduct a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause before issuing the warrant of arrest.

• Procedural:
  • The petition is moot and academic in view of the trial court's judgment convicting the petitioner of homicide, as the supervening event of conviction operates to render the challenge to the procedural orders of no practical use or value. However, the Court resolved the issues to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and public.
  • The petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the regularity of the reinvestigation, the validity of the amended information, and the legality of his arrest by applying for bail or participating in trial, because he vigorously raised these objections prior to his arraignment and refused to enter a plea during arraignment. Waiver requires clear and convincing proof of an actual intention to relinquish the right, which was not established by the prosecution.
  • Certiorari is limited to resolving errors of jurisdiction and does not stray to resolve questions of fact or judgment; the Court found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in the assailed orders.
• Substantive:
  • A private complainant, who is merely a witness and not a party to the criminal case, cannot by himself ask for reinvestigation after the information has been filed. However, with the conformity of the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution, the private complainant (or his counsel where allowed to intervene) can file a motion for reinvestigation. Once an information is filed in court, any remedial measure such as reinvestigation must be addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
  • The amendment from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment because it involves additional averments of qualifying circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty) that change the nature of the offense and affect the weight of the defense. Such substantial amendment requires a new preliminary investigation or reinvestigation to afford the accused the opportunity to adduce evidence on the new matters.
  • There is no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation, as both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objective of determining whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
  • The judge is not required to conduct a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. The judge must personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and the supporting documents, but is not required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses. A motion for judicial determination of probable cause is a mere superfluity.

• Waiver of Objections under Section 26, Rule 114 — An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. Waiver requires clear and convincing proof of an actual intention to relinquish the right, and mere active participation in trial without previously invoking objections does not constitute waiver.
• Substantial Amendment of Information — A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. The amendment of an information from homicide to murder is substantial as it introduces qualifying circumstances that change the nature of the offense and require a new preliminary investigation.
• Judicial Determination of Probable Cause — The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody. The judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and its supporting evidence, but is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses or conduct a hearing. The determination is summary and not adversarial.
• Mootness — A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. However, the Court may still resolve moot issues to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and public.
• Reinvestigation by Private Complainant — While the private complainant is not a party to the criminal case and cannot alone seek reinvestigation, he may do so with the conformity of the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution, subject to the sound discretion of the court once the information is already filed.

• "Waiver on the part of the accused must be distinguished from mootness of the petition..."
• "There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause."
• "The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies 'only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.'"
• "A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form."
• "The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other."
• "There is no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objective of determining whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial."
• "To move the court to conduct a judicial determination of probable cause is a mere superfluity, for with or without such motion, the judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and the supporting evidence."
• "The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses... he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause... and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause."

• Borlongan, Jr. v. Peña — Cited for the principle that an accused is precluded from questioning illegal arrest or irregular preliminary investigation only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial without previously invoking his objections.
• Okabe v. Hon. Gutierrez — Cited for the standard that waiver requires clear and convincing proof of actual intention to relinquish a right.
• Galvez v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition rests in the sound discretion of the court, and the prosecutor cannot impose his opinion upon the tribunal.
• Abugotal v. Judge Tiro — Cited for the recognition that a trial court may grant reinvestigation where the interest of justice so requires.
• Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan — Cited for the rule that a substantial amendment entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation unless the amended charge is related to or included in the original information.
• Ricarze v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the test distinguishing substantial from formal amendments.
• Dionaldo v. Hon. Dacuycuy — Cited for the holding that the amendment of an information from homicide to murder is one of substance with very serious consequences.
• Buhat v. Court of Appeals — Distinguished on the basis that the amendment there involved only the caption without changing the recital of facts in the body of the information.
• Pacoy v. Cajigal — Distinguished similarly to Buhat; the amended information contained the same averments as the original.
• Mercado v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that the presence of the respondent is not required in a preliminary investigation as long as efforts to reach him were made and an opportunity to controvert evidence was accorded him.
• Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice — Cited for the principle that speed in the conduct of proceedings cannot per se be attributed to injudicious performance or bias.
• Baltazar v. People — Cited for the judge's duty to determine probable cause.
• Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the rule that determination of probable cause is summary in nature and not adversarial.

• Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court — Provides that application for bail shall not bar the accused from challenging validity of arrest or legality of warrant, or assailing regularity of preliminary investigation, provided raised before entering plea.
• Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court — Governs procedure when a person is lawfully arrested without warrant, including the right to preliminary investigation before and after filing of complaint or information.
• Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court — Governs amendment of complaint or information, distinguishing between formal and substantial amendments.
• Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court — Outlines procedure for RTC to determine probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest.
• Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code — Cited regarding waiver of provisions on delay in delivery to judicial authorities for purposes of preliminary investigation.
• Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Provides that certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued.