JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, GR No. 182677, Aug.

03, 2010
Facts:

Petitioner was, by Information, charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las
Alas on January 12, 2007 before the RTC of Makati City. After petitioner posted a
₱40,000 cash bond which the trial court approved, he was released from detention, and
his arraignment was set on January 24, 2007.

The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, with the conformity of the public
prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus Motion 7 praying, inter alia, 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.

The trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders, (1) admitting the Amended
Information13 for murder and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest; and
(2) Order which set the arraignment on February 13, 2007. Petitioner questioned these
two orders via supplemental petition before the appellate court.

Issue WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the
amended information, issuing a warrant of arrest, and setting the case below for
arraignment
Ruling:
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.
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 hi... 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.
LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE, GR No. 174461, Sept. 11, 2013
Facts:
Jesus Mallo, Jr., accompanied by Amiel Malana, went to the house of the petitioner.
Mallo knocked at the front door with a stone and identified himself by saying, "Auntie,
ako si Boy Mallo."
The petitioner opened the door and at this point, her son and co-accused, Johan, using
his left hand, shot Mallo twice using a gun. Malana, who was with Mallo and who
witnessed the shooting, immediately ran towards the west, followed by Mallo.
When Malana turned his back, he saw the petitioner leveling and firing her long gun at
Mallo, hitting the latter's back and causing him to fall flat on the ground.
The prosecution filed an information for homicide against the petitioner and Johan. Both
accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. They waived the
pre-trial, and the trial on the merits accordingly followed.
The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the amended information for which
she was convicted. The records of the case evidently show that the amendment in the
complaint was from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988, or a difference of only one month.
Issues:
WON a change of date of the commission of a crime is a formal amendment
WON an arraignment is necessary
Ruling:
YES.A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is
not great, is more formal than substantial. Such an amendment would not prejudice the
rights of the accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the
offense. It is not even necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time
at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the
offense. Under the circumstances, the precise time is not an essential ingredient of the
crime of homicide.
NO. The importance of arraignment is based on the constitutional right of the accused
to be informed. The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended
information or complaint. This however, pertains only to substantial amendments and
not to formal amendments that, by their very nature, do not charge an offense different
from that charged in the original complaint or information.