Leviste vs Alameda 626 SCRA 575
G.R. No. 182677, Promulgation Date: August 3, 2010
Ponente: Carpio Morales
Topic: Inquest
Doctrine: In cases where a re-investigation was already conducted by the prosecution
upon motion of the private complainant after the filing of the information but before
arraignment, and the accused failed to actively participate in such re-investigation
despite his knowledge of such, the accused is barred from praying for a conduct of
preliminary investigation, there being no substantial distinction between a preliminary
investigation and a reinvestigation.
Emergency Recit: Petitioner was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael De Las
Alas. He posted a bond and was released from detention. Private complainants filed a
Motion praying for the deferment of the proceedings to allow public prosecutor to
conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. RTC granted the Motion and
allowed the prosecution to conduct reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.
Petitioner questions this order arguing that the prosecution cannot seek reinvestigation
of the case except though a petition for review before the DOJ. Petitioner also contends
that the remedy of preliminary investigation belongs only to the accused. Court ruled that
where a re-investigation was already conducted by the prosecution upon motion of the
private complainant after the filing of the information but before arraignment, and the
accused failed to actively participate in such re-investigation despite his knowledge of
such, the accused is barred from praying for a conduct of preliminary investigation, there
being no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a
reinvestigation.
Facts:
Petitioner was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas before RTC
Makati. Presiding Judge Alameda issued a commitment order against petitioner who
was placed under police custody.
Petitioner posted 40K cash bond which was approved, he was released from detention,
and his arraignment was set.
The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed 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.
RTC issued an Order deferring petitioners arraignment and allowing the prosecution to
conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. Petitioner assailed this order
via certiorari and prohibition before the CA.
Meantime, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion before the trial
court to defer acting on the public prosecutors recommendation on the proper offense
until after the appellate court resolves his application for injunctive reliefs, or
alternatively, to grant him time to comment on the prosecutors recommendation and
thereafter set a hearing for the judicial determination of probable cause.
RTC issued the assailed order that admitted the Amended Information for murder and
directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioner questioned this order via
supplemental petition before the appellate court. The appellate court dismissed
petitioner’s petition, hence, his present petition.
Petitioner posits that the prosecution has no right under the Rules to seek from the trial
court an investigation or reevaluation of the case except through a petition for review
before the Department of Justice (DOJ). In cases when an accused is arrested without a
warrant, petitioner contends that the remedy of preliminary investigation belongs only to
the accused.
Issue: WON private respondent has the right to cause the reinvestigation of the criminal
case when the criminal information had already been filed with the lower court
Ruling:
YES. [see doctrine]
A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for
an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and
one day without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need
for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such
type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted.
Inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public
prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit
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.
In cases of inquest proceedings, before the filing of the complaint or information in court,
the arrested person has the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation,
provided he duly signs a waiver of Article 125 of the RPC. The decision of the inquest
prosecutor is not appealable to the DOJ, since such remedy applies only in cases
subject of preliminary investigation / reinvestigation.
Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the accused may ask for a preliminary
investigation within five days from the time he learns of its filing. The accused may also
move for a Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
The Court holds that the private complainant can move for reinvestigation, subject to and
in light of the ensuing disquisition.
