Case Summary (G.R. No. 182677)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Jose Antonio C. Leviste.
Respondent Judges: Hon. Elmo M. Alameda, Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez, Hon. Emmanuel Y. Velasco.
Private Complainants: Heirs of the late Rafael de las Alas.
Key Dates and Procedural History
– January 12, 2007: Death of Rafael de las Alas.
– January 16, 2007: Information for homicide filed; petitioner committed to custody, posted P40,000 bail.
– January 24 & 31, 2007: RTC deferred arraignment and denied reconsideration to allow reinvestigation.
– February 7 & 8, 2007: RTC admitted amended information for murder and set new arraignment.
– March 21, 2007: Arraignment proceeded; petitioner refused to plead; plea of not guilty entered.
– May 21, 2007: RTC granted bail pending trial (P300,000).
– January 14, 2009: RTC convicted petitioner of homicide and imposed penalty.
– August 30, 2007 & April 18, 2008: Court of Appeals affirmed trial court orders and denied motions for reconsideration.
– May 30, 2008: Petition for review to the Supreme Court filed.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post–1990 decision).
– Rules of Court:
• Rule 112 (preliminary investigation and inquest)
• Rule 110 (filing and amendment of information)
• Rule 114, § 26 (bail does not bar challenge to preliminary investigation)
• Rule 65 (effect of certiorari on criminal proceedings)
• Rule 45 (scope of review on certiorari)
Factual and Procedural Background
After filing of the homicide information, the heirs of the victim, with the prosecutor’s conformity, moved for a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. The RTC deferred arraignment to allow the prosecutor to conduct a 30-day reinvestigation. Upon conclusion, the prosecutor filed an amended information charging murder based on alleged treachery, premeditation and cruelty. Petitioner challenged these orders by certiorari before the Court of Appeals and sought injunctive reliefs, all of which were denied. Arraignment and trial then proceeded, leading to petitioner’s conviction for homicide.
Issues Presented
- Whether the private complainants and public prosecutor had the right to obtain reinvestigation after filing of the information.
- Whether the amended information upgrading homicide to murder was valid without a new preliminary investigation.
- Whether petitioner’s application for bail or active participation in trial constituted waiver of his objections.
- Whether a hearing was required for judicial determination of probable cause.
Supreme Court’s Mootness and Waiver Analysis
The judgment of conviction rendered the petition moot, but the Court chose to resolve the issues to establish controlling principles. Petitioner's participation in trial and bail application did not amount to waiver because he timely raised all objections before plea. Under Rule 114, § 26, admission to bail does not bar challenges to lack or irregularity of preliminary investigation if raised before plea. No clear and convincing evidence showed voluntary relinquishment of rights.
Authority to Reinvestigate and Amendment of Information
The Rules of Court permit a prosecutor to file an information without preliminary investigation if an inquest was held. After filing, the accused may still request a preliminary investigation within five days of learning of its filing. Although the private complainant cannot independently move for reinvestigation, with prosecutor’s conformity and court approval, a motion for reinvestigation is permissible. An information may be amended in substance without leave of court before plea; substantial amendments (as from homicide to murder by adding qualifying circumstances) require reinvestigation or preliminary investigation to satisfy due process. Here, the reinvestigation and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182677)
Procedural History
- Petitioner was charged by Information dated January 16, 2007 for homicide arising from the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 150.
- RTC Branch 150 issued a commitment order; petitioner was detained, posted ₱40,000 cash bond, and was released pending arraignment set January 24, 2007.
- The private complainants, with the prosecutor’s conformity, filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion for reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.
- RTC issued on January 24, 2007 an Order deferring arraignment and allowing reinvestigation; on January 31, 2007 it denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) and separately moved in the RTC to defer action on the prosecutor’s recommendation and for the inhibition of Judge Alameda.
- RTC on February 7, 2007 admitted an Amended Information for murder and directed a warrant of arrest; on February 8, 2007 it reset arraignment to February 13, 2007.
- Petitioner filed supplemental certiorari before the CA; the CA on August 30, 2007 dismissed his petitions and on April 18, 2008 denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Arraignment proceeded on March 21, 2007; petitioner refused to plead, and the RTC entered a plea of “not guilty” for him.
- Petitioner filed an Urgent Application for Bail; RTC granted bail at ₱300,000 on May 21, 2007.
- Trial under the Amended Information proceeded; on January 14, 2009 the RTC convicted petitioner of homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty.
- Petitioner appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CR No. 32159) and sought bail pending appeal; the CA denied it and this Court affirmed on March 17, 2010 (G.R. No. 189122).
- The Office of the Solicitor General argued the instant petition was moot due to conclusion of presentation of evidence; petitioner maintained his objections had not been waived.
Facts
- On January 12, 2007, Rafael de las Alas was shot and killed; petitioner was charged with homicide.
- Private complainants are the heirs of the victim; the public prosecutor conducted an inquest and later moved for reinvestigation.
- An Amended Information was filed charging petitioner with murder, alleging qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and cruelty.
Petitioner's Contentions
- The CA erred in upholding the RTC’s grant of reinvestigation after the Information had been filed.
- The RTC abused discretion in admitting the Amended Information for murder, issuing a warrant, and resetting arraignment while earlier orders were pending resolution.
- The prosecutor’s resolution was based on speculation and no substantial or material new evidence was adduced during reinvestigation.
- The RTC should have conducted a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause.
- Petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the legality of these orders despite participating in the trial.
Issues Presented
- Does the Rules of Court permit reinvestigation of a criminal case after the filing of an Information?
- Was the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder substantial, requiring another or new prelimin