G.R. No. 196015 - Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. vs. Canicon

Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals’ (CA) September 29, 2010 Decision and March 4, 2011 Resolution denying its Rule 65 certiorari petition against the RTC’s October 23, 2007 Order.
The CA’s Assailed Decision upheld the RTC’s reinstatement of its September 17, 2003 Order admitting an amended information in Criminal Case No. 12508-B.

Petitioner filed a complaint for estafa (Revised Penal Code, Art. 315(1)(b), in relation to PD 1689) against employees Aguilar, Canicon, and Espeleta.
Prosecutor Juarez conducted preliminary investigation, found probable cause, and filed an information on April 24, 2003 before the RTC of Biñan (later transferred to San Pedro, Laguna).

Accused Espeleta moved for reinvestigation (June 12, 2003); motion remained unresolved when arraignment occurred on June 30, 2003 (both accused pleaded not guilty).
Prosecutor Lomarda, after reinvestigation (July 28, 2003 Report), recommended dismissal of charges against Espeleta and filed a motion to amend information (Aug 4, 2003), dropping Espeleta and recommending bail for remaining accused.
RTC Branch 31 (Judge Cabuco-Andres) issued the September 17, 2003 Order admitting the amended information without explaining its independent assessment.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the September 17 Order; provincial prosecutor denied reconsideration (Sept 26, 2003).
Acting Judge Laguilles issued November 15, 2006 Resolution setting aside the September 17 Order, ruling reinvestigation without leave of court was nullity and vacating admission of the amended information.
Espeleta and Canicon moved for reconsideration; Judge Baybay’s October 23, 2007 Order granted their motion, reinstated the September 17 Order, and held that (a) the court ratified the reinvestigation by admitting the amended information, and (b) dropping Espeleta twice would violate her right against double jeopardy.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the October 23 Order was denied (Apr 21, 2008).

Petitioner’s Rule 65 certiorari petition attributed grave abuse of discretion to the RTC for (a) due process violation during reinvestigation and amendment of information without notice, and (b) failure of RTC to independently evaluate evidence.
CA denied certiorari, ruling that only the public prosecutor has discretion over indictments, and that admission of the amended information effectively dismissed the case against Espeleta with the court’s acquiescence.
Respondents argued lack of petitioner’s locus standi without OSG conformity and that reinstatement of Espeleta violated double jeopardy.

Whether petitioner, as private complainant, has standing to file the petition without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Whether reinstating Espeleta as accused places her in double jeopardy.
Whether the CA erred in ruling absence of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in its October 23, 2007 Order reinstating the September 17, 2003 Order by:

Depriving petitioner of due process when the RTC admitted the amended information based on reinvestigation and motion to amend without notice.
Failing to make its own independent evaluation of the evidence before admitting the amended information.