LEVISTE VS ALAMEDA

Criminal Procedure; Arraignment; Bail; Waiver; An accused, in applying for bail, does
not waive his right to challenge the regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge
against him, the validity of the admission of the Amended Information, and the legality
of his arrest under the Amended Information, where he vigorously raised them prior to
his arraignment; 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.—Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation.—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 issued therefor, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the
charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court
shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of
the case. By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the
regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge against him, the validity of the admission
of the Amended Information, and the legality of his arrest under the Amended
Information, as he vigorously raised them prior to his arraignment. During the
arraignment on March 21, 2007, petitioner refused to enter his plea since the issues he
raised were still pending resolution by the appellate court, thus prompting the trial court
to enter a plea of “not guilty” for him. 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.” There must be clear and convincing
proof that petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the
existence of probable cause. When the only proof of intention rests on what a party
does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of, an intent to
voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of
his conduct is possible.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Injunction; The non-issuance of an injunctive relief only
means that the appellate court did not preliminarily find any exception to the long-
standing doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution.—Whatever
delay arising from petitioner’s availment of remedies against the trial court’s Orders
cannot be imputed to petitioner to operate as a valid waiver on his part. Neither can
the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be deemed as a voluntary
relinquishment of petitioner’s principal prayer. The non-issuance of such injunctive relief
only means that the appellate court did not preliminarily find any exception to the long-
standing doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution.
Consequently, the trial of the case took its course.
Same; Preliminary Investigation; Inquest; Words and Phrases; 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.—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

Same; Same; Same; Before the filing of complaint or information in court, the private
complainant may proceed in coordinating with the arresting officer and the inquest
officer during the latter’s conduct of inquest, while the arrested person has the option to
avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, provided he duly signs a waiver of any
objection against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code; The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary
nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125, ends with either the prompt
filing of an information in court or the immediate release of the arrested person—the
rules on inquest do not provide for a motion for reconsideration.—It is imperative to first
take a closer look at the predicament of both the arrested person and the private
complainant during the brief period of inquest, to grasp the respective remedies
available to them before and after the filing of a complaint or information in court.
BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN COURT, the private
complainant may proceed in coordinating with the arresting officer and the inquest
officer during the latter’s conduct of inquest. Meanwhile, the arrested person has the
option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, provided he duly signs a waiver of
any objection against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code. For obvious reasons, this remedy is not available to the
private complainant since he cannot waive what he does not have. The benefit of the
provisions of Article 125, which requires the filing of a complaint or information with the
proper judicial authorities within the applicable period, belongs to the arrested person.
The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary nature and the attendant risk
of running against Article 125, ends with either the prompt filing of an information in
court or the immediate release of the arrested person. Notably, the rules on inquest do
not provide for a motion for reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; In cases subject of inquest, the private party should first avail of a
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary.—Contrary to petitioner’s position that private
complainant should have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such remedy is not
immediately available in cases subject of inquest. Noteworthy is the proviso that the
appeal to the DOJ Secretary is by “petition by a proper party under such rules as the
Department of Justice may prescribe.” The rule referred to is the 2000 National
Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of which provides that the Rule shall
“apply to appeals from resolutions x x x in cases subject of preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.” In cases subject of inquest, therefore, the private party should first avail
of a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter to
the DOJ Secretary. In case the inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the
private complainant may pursue the case through the regular course of a preliminary
investigation.

Same; Same; Reinvestigation; Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the

accused is provided with another opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation
within five days from the time he learns of its filing, while a private complainant can
move for reinvestigation in cases he is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
action and is granted the authority to prosecute, with the conformity of the public
prosecutor.—ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT, the rules yet
provide the accused with another opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation
within five days from the time he learns of its filing. The Rules of Court and the New Rules
on Inquest are silent, however, on whether the private complainant could invoke, as
respondent heirs of the victim did in the present case, a similar right to ask for a
reinvestigation. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for
reinvestigation, subject to and in light of the ensuing disquisition. All criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction
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
reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed in court, the proper
party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the
case. Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in
the criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant,
by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for
reinvestigation.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; 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.—Considering
that another or a new preliminary investigation is required, the fact that what was
conducted in the present case was a reinvestigation does not invalidate the substantial
amend-ment of the Information. 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. What is essential is that
petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the charge of murder after the
claimed circumstances were made known to him as early as the first motion.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The rules do not even require, as a condition sine qua non to
the validity of a preliminary investigation, the presence of the respondent as long as
efforts to reach him were made and an opportunity to controvert the complainant’s
evidence was accorded him.—Petitioner did not, however, make much of the
opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the proposed amended charge.
Despite notice of hearing, petitioner opted to merely observe the proceedings and
declined to actively participate, even with extreme caution, in the reinvestigation.
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 594 (1995) states that the rules do not even
require, as a condition sine qua non to the validity of a preliminary investigation, the
presence of the respondent as long as efforts to reach him were made and an
opportunity to controvert the complainant’s evidence was accorded him

Same; Same; Probable Cause; There are two kinds of determination of probable cause:
executive and judicial; The executive determination of probable cause is one made
during preliminary investigation; The judicial determination of probable cause is one
made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against
the accused.—There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and
judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary
investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given
a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those
whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be
held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine
whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether that function has been
correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether he has made a correct
ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial
court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. The judicial
determination of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself
that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable
cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant. Paragraph (a), Section 5,
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court outlines the procedure to be followed by the RTC.