CASE CITATION: G.R. No. 196015.

June 27, 2018

LEGEND OF FORMAT: my comments in red
DIGEST BY: ABOviedo

BLURB: Prosecution of offenses: Amendment or Substitution of complaint or information.

RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
The case is a petition for review filed by Rural Bank of Mabitac as petitioner which seeks to nullify
the CA decision and resolution denying their petition for certiorari. The Trial Court had earlier set
aside its previous resolution and reinstated an earlier order in a criminal case for estafa which the
bank had filed against three of its employees.

The petitioner argues in the main that its right to due process was violated, and that the trial court
had not exercised the required discretion in allowing the amendment of the information, but had
merely adopted the finding of the Prosecutor without making an independent assessment of the
evidence.

The CA ruled in favor of the Trial Court, stating that the determination of probable cause rests
solely with the prosecutor, and that the trial court’s approval of the amendment was deemed to
have ratified the reinvestigation which was conducted.

There were 3 issues raised for the resolution of the SC:

ISSUE #1: WHETHER petitioner has standing to file the petition without the conformity of the OSG
HELD: YES.

ISSUE #2: WHETHER the present petition, which seeks the reinstatement of the original
information, places Espeleta in double jeopardy.
HELD: NO

ISSUE #3: WHETHER the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the RTC in issuing
the October 23, 2007 Order that reinstated the September 17, 2003 Order:
HELD: In this case, we need not discuss the validity of the reinvestigation or the
amendment of the information. The petition before the CA does not concern the propriety
or the merit of the reinvestigation. Also, an amendment is allowed even after arraignment
for as long as it is beneficial to the accused, as in this case. We rule squarely on petitioner's
claim that the RTC did not make its own evaluation of the records and evidence in the case
when it allowed the amendment of the information.

Here, the October 23, 2007 Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion because the
RTC did not make an independent determination or assessment of the merits of the motion
to amend information. It merely granted the motion, without any reason or explanation.

PETITION GRANTED.
DOCTRINE:
Once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, including the exercise of discretion
by the prosecution, is subject to the disposal of the court. The trial court must make its own
independent evaluation of the evidence and determine whether there is probable cause to proceed
with the case.

An amendment is allowed even after arraignment for as long as it is beneficial to the accused.

DISPOSITION: Petition Granted.

FACTS AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

• Petitioner: Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna
o filed a criminal complaint for estafa in relation to economic sabotage against its
employees; the last two are the respondents in this current case
§ Rica Aguilar
§ Melanie Canicon
§ Merlita Espeleta
• Prosecutor Alfredo Juarez conducted a preliminary investigation, where Espeleta and
Canicon submitted counter-affidavits
o Found probable cause to recommend the filing of an information of estafa against
the three employees
• Hence, an information for estafa was filed against the three before the RTC of Biñan,
Laguna, which was later transferred to the RTC of San Pedro
o Subsequently, Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres issued a warrant of arrest for all 3
§ Only Espeleta and Canicon were arrested
§ Aguilar remained at large
• Espeleta then filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation before the RTC
o Claimed that the preliminary investigation was conducted hastily, and denied her
the chance to present her evidence
o This was opposed by the petitioner bank
• RTC, without resolving the urgent motion for reinvestigation, arraigned both Espeleta and
Canicon on June 30, 2003
o Both entered a plea of not guilty
• Meanwhile, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Lomarda conducted a reinvestigation
o In his Report, Prosecutor Lomarda recommended the dismissal of the case against
Espeleta and the filing of an amended information
o Hence, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to amend the
information, which
§ dropped Espeleta from the list of those originally charged, and
§ recommended bail for the remaining accused
RTC
• Judge Cabuco-Andres: granted the motion and admitted the amended information
o petitioner bank sought reconsideration, which was denied by the OPP of San Pedro,
Laguna
• HOWEVER, after this denial, the RTC, this time through Judge Zenaida Laguilles, issued
another resolution which recalled and set aside the Order issued by Judge Cabuco-Andres
o Judge Laguilles ruled that a procedural misstep was committed when Prosecutor
Lomarda conducted the reinvestigation without prior leave of court
o The seeming acquiescence of former presiding Judge Cabuco-Andres in admitting
the amended information will not cure the procedural infirmity committed
o As such, the reinvestigation conducted without judicial imprimatur is a nullity and
created no vested rights
• Espeleta and Canicon thus filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which the
petitioner bank opposed
o This was granted by the RTC, this time through Judge Rommel Baybay
§ Held that the public prosecutor has the sole discretion to decide whether to
indict a person, because in criminal cases, the real offended party is the
State, and the role of the private complainant is merely to testify as a witness
for the prosecution, being limited to the civil liability
§ Explained further that by granting the public prosecution leave to amend the
Information and admitting the Amended Information, the Court, in effect,
recognized the validity of the reinvestigation as if it were conducted with
judicial imprimatur.
§ Found that reinstating the charge against Espeleta would violate her right
against double jeopardy
• An MR filed by the petitioner was denied, leading it to elevate the case to the CA, which
similarly denied certiorari, ruling
o That the petition suffered from a fatal procedural infirmity because a private
prosecutor cannot prosecute the criminal aspect of a criminal case, and
o the determination of probable cause as to warrant a criminal prosecution rests
solely at the discretion of the public prosecutor
o Hence, the judgment of the prosecutor to drop Espeleta, and the RTC's
acquiescence to this judgment by admitting the amended information, cannot be
considered as grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, because [t]he
criminal prosecution will always remain under the absolute control of the public
prosecutor, and his judgment cannot be substituted by the opinion of the private
prosecutor [or] by the court.
• Petitioner bank insists that the CA erred in not finding that the RTC committed grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the order, alleging
§ First, that its right to due process was violated
• when the public prosecutor committed the reinvestigation, and
• when the RTC allowed the amendment of the information [TOPIC]
• postulates that due process requires that it be notified by the trial
court at all states of the proceedings, as it is a “party” who may be
affected by the orders issued and / or judgment rendered therein
 o asserts that the public prosecutor loses the sole discretion to
determine the existence of probable cause when an
information is filed in court
o hence, the prosecutor’s office cannot conduct a
reinvestigation without the prior leave and approval by the
court; the determination of probable cause is now at the sole
discretion of the court
o they were not notified when the prosecutor’s office conducted
reinvestigation, nor when Prosecutor Lomarda filed a motion
for leave to amend information and to admit amended
information, in violation of the rules
• Second, that the RTC (through Judge Cabuco-Andres) did not
exercise the discretion required by law, and merely approved the
position taken by prosecutor Lomarda without assessing the
evidence on record
• Finally, that as private prosecutor, it has locus standi to file the
necessary pleadings in the criminal case
o Since it did not file a separate civil action, nor reserve its right
to file the same, petitioner claims that as the party injured by
the crime, it has the right to be heard ona motion that was
derogatory to its interest in the civil aspect of the case
o Also alleges that they could not secure Prosecutor
Lomarda’s conformity because they filed a criminal case
against him
• Respondent Canicon, on the other hand,
o notes that the petitioner bank does not question the merits of the Lomarda Report,
but merely attacks it on technicalities
o further alleges that the petitioner does not have locus standi, because the true
complainant who would be prejudiced is the State, not petitioner bank
o asserts that the error in not procuring the conformity of the public prosecutor in filing
the petition before the CA, as well as in this case, is further aggravated by the failure
to notify or inform the Office of the Solicitor General
• Respondent Espeleta
o Adopts Canicon’s argument
o Adds that her inclusion as respondent in this petition is a violation of her right
against double jeopardy, since the previous Order had already validly dismissed
the criminal offense against her after arraignment
Hence, the current petition.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES [had to change the format a bit to better conform to the flow of the case
itself]
ISSUE #1: WHETHER petitioner has standing to file the petition without the conformity of the OSG
HELD: YES.
 The OSG has the sole authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before
the Supreme Court and the CA. Nevertheless, we have recognized instances where a
private complainant would have standing to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
against the dismissal of a criminal case.

Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings
pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains
the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings
before the courts of law.

Thus, in cases where the dismissal of the criminal case is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved parties are both the
State and the private complainant. This right of the private complainant is anchored on
his interest on the civil aspect of the case that is deemed instituted in the criminal case.

Private respondents, being the real parties interested in upholding the questioned rulings,
have the personality to appear in their behalf and in behalf of public respondents pursuant
to Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, this lack of opposition from the
OSG against the petition tacitly recognizes that petitioner, as private complainant, has the
personality to bring the issue before the CA.

As to the issue of the OSG’s participation or lack thereof

Notably, the records show that the OSG, in its manifestation and motion before the CA,
prayed that it be excused from filing a memorandum. The OSG is of the view that the
presiding judge and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, being nominal parties, need
not file their own separate memoranda. Private respondents, being the real parties
interested in upholding the questioned rulings, have the personality to appear in their behalf
and in behalf of public respondents pursuant to Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Accordingly, this lack of opposition from the OSG against the petition tacitly recognizes
that petitioner, as private complainant, has the personality to bring the issue before
the CA.

ISSUE #2: WHETHER the present petition, which seeks the reinstatement of the original
information, places Espeleta in double jeopardy.
HELD: NO
Double jeopardy attaches when the following elements concur:
(1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of
the crime charged;
(2) a court of competent jurisdiction;
(3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and
(4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express
consent.
 The contentious element in this case is the fourth one, i.e., whether the dismissal was with
express consent of Espeleta.

As a rule, where the dismissal was granted upon motion of the accused, jeopardy will not
attach. In this case, Espeleta's filing of the urgent motion for reinvestigation did not amount
to her express consent. We have held before that the mere filing of a motion for
reinvestigation cannot be equated to the accused's express consent.

However, we still find that Espeleta gave her express consent when her counsel did not
object to the amendment of the information. As we have held in People v. Pilpa, the
dismissal of the case without any objection on the part of the accused is equivalent to the
accused's express consent to its termination, which would bar a claim for violation of the
right against double jeopardy.

Considering that the first jeopardy did not attach when the case was previously dismissed
as to Espeleta, this petition will not expose Espeleta to double jeopardy.

ISSUE #3: WHETHER the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the RTC in issuing
the October 23, 2007 Order that reinstated the September 17, 2003 Order:
3a. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process when the RTC admitted the amended
information based on the reinvestigation, despite the alleged lack of notice to the petitioner
of the reinvestigation and the motion.
3b. Whether the trial court made its own independent evaluation of the evidence when it
admitted the amended information dropping Espeleta as accused.
HELD: In this case, we need not discuss the validity of the reinvestigation or the
amendment of the information. The petition before the CA does not concern the propriety
or the merit of the reinvestigation. Also, an amendment is allowed even after arraignment
for as long as it is beneficial to the accused, as in this case. We rule squarely on petitioner's
claim that the RTC did not make its own evaluation of the records and evidence in the case
when it allowed the amendment of the information.

Petitioner argues that upon filing of the information before the court, the prosecution
relinquishes its full control of the case to the discretion of the trial court. Thus, where the
prosecution seeks an amendment of the information, the RTC must make its own
independent assessment of the merits of the motion based on an evaluation of the
evidence. This, according to petitioner, it failed to do. We agree with petitioner.

Here, the October 23, 2007 Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion because the
RTC did not make an independent determination or assessment of the merits of the motion
to amend information. It merely granted the motion, without any reason or explanation.

PETITION GRANTED.