Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses - Case Digest || Castro, Boco G.R. No.

177583 February 27, 2009 LOURDES BALTA AR a!" ED#SON BALTA AR, Petitioners, vs. $A#%E &'UA y #BARRA, Respondent. FA&TS( Jai e and Jovito !ere c"arged #efore t"e R$C %anila, Branc" &' !it" t"e cri es of "o icide and frustrated "o icide for t"e deat" of (ldefonso Balta)ar and t"e !ounding of *dison Balta)ar. On 1+ ,e#ruar- 1..', petitioners /ourdes Balta)ar 0/ourdes1 and *dison Balta)ar 0*dison1, t"roug" counsel, filed a otion for reinvestigation of t"e cases, pra-ing t"at Jai e and Jovito #e c"arged !it" t"e cri es of urder and frustrated urder, instead of "o icide and frustrated "o icide. (n a Resolution dated & Jul- 1..', t"e Cit- Prosecutor2s Office, upon reinvestigation, found t"at t"e appropriate c"arges against Jai e and Jovito !ere urder and frustrated urder. 3it" t"is, t"e CitProsecutor filed a otion for ad ission of a ended (nfor ations for %urder and ,rustrated %urder, !"ic" !as granted #- Judge Cru) in an Order dated . 4epte #er 1..'. Jai e and Jovito appealed t"e & Jul- 1..' Resolution of t"e Cit- Prosecutor to t"e Depart ent of Justice 0DOJ1. $"e 4ecretar- of t"e DOJ 04ecretar- of Justice1, in "is Resolution dated &0 Octo#er 1..', odified t"e & Jul- 1..' resolution of t"e Cit- Prosecutor #- directing t"e latter to a end t"e (nfor ations for %urder and ,rustrated %urder to 5o icide and ,rustrated 5o icide against Jovito and to drop Jai e fro t"e c"arges. %ean!"ile, on 11 6ove #er 1..', in o#edience to t"e directive of t"e 4ecretar- of t"e DOJ, t"e CitProsecutor filed !it" t"e R$C a %anifestation and %otion for t"e 3it"dra!al of t"e (nfor ations for %urder and ,rustrated %urder and for t"e 7d ission of 6e! (nfor ations for 5o icide and ,rustrated 5o icide. Over t"e o#8ections of /ourdes and *dison, Judge Cru) granted t"e said anifestation and Order dated 19 6ove #er 1..', t"ere#- leaving Jovito as t"e lone accused. otion in an #SSUE( 3"et"er Judge 5idalgo a- revie! t"e finding of t"e 4ecretar- of Justice on t"e e<istence or none<istence of pro#a#le cause sufficient to "old Jai e for trial and su#stitute "is 8udg ent for t"at of t"e 4ecretar- of Justice. 'ELD( )e* $"e rule is t"at once an infor ation is filed in court, an- disposition of t"e case, #e it dis issal, conviction, or acAuittal of t"e accused, rests on t"e sound discretion of t"e court. Crespo v. %ogul laid do!n t"is #asic precept in t"is !ise: $"e rule t"erefore in t"is 8urisdiction is t"at once a co plaint or infor ation is filed in Court an- disposition of t"e case as BtoC its dis issal or t"e conviction or acAuittal of t"e accused rests in t"e sound discretion of t"e court. 7lt"oug" t"e fiscal retains t"e direction and control of t"e prosecution of cri inal cases even !"ile t"e case is alread- in court "e cannot i pose "is opinion on t"e trial court. $"e court is t"e #est and sole 8udge on !"at to do !it" t"e case #efore it. $"e deter ination of t"e case is !it"in its e<clusive 8urisdiction and co petence. 7 otion to dis iss t"e case filed #- t"e fiscal s"ould #e addressed to t"e Court !"o "as t"e option to grant or den- t"e sa e. Crespo and %artine) andated t"e trial courts to a;e an independent assess ent of t"e erits of t"e reco endation of t"e prosecution dis issing or continuing a case. $"is evaluation a- #e #ased on t"e affidavits and counter-affidavits, docu ents, or evidence appended to t"e infor ationD t"e records of t"e pu#lic prosecutor !"ic" t"e court a- order t"e latter to produce #efore t"e courtD or an- evidence alreadadduced #efore t"e court #- t"e accused at t"e ti e t"e otion is filed #- t"e pu#lic prosecutor. Reliance on t"e resolution of t"e 4ecretar- of Justice alone is considered an a#dication of t"e trial court2s dut- and 8urisdiction to deter ine a pri a facie case. 3"ile t"e ruling of t"e Justice 4ecretar- is persuasive, it is not #inding on courts. $"e trial court is not #ound #- t"e Resolution of t"e Justice 4ecretar-, #ut ust evaluate it #efore proceeding !it" t"e trial. (n t"e case under consideration, t"e Cit- Prosecutor indicted Jai e and Jovito for t"e cri es of urder and frustrated urder. 5o!ever, upon revie!, t"e 4ecretar- of Justice do!ngraded t"e c"arges to "o icide and frustrated "o icide. $"e 4ecretar- also dropped Jai e fro t"e c"arges. $"is resolution pro pted t"e Cit- Prosecutor to file a %anifestation and %otion for t"e 3it"dra!al of t"e (nfor ations for %urder and ,rustrated %urder and for t"e 7d ission of 6e! (nfor ations for 5o icide and ,rustrated 5o icide against Jovito onl-, !"ic" !as granted #- Judge Cru) in "is Order dated 19 6ove #er 1..'. Judge Cru), "o!ever, failed to a;e an independent assess ent of t"e erits of t"e cases and t"e evidence on record or in t"e possession of t"e pu#lic prosecutor. (n granting t"e otion of t"e pu#lic prosecutor to !it"dra! t"e (nfor ations, t"e trial court never ade an- assess ent !"et"er t"e conclusions arrived at #- t"e 4ecretar- of Justice !as supported #- evidence. (t did not even ta;e a loo; at t"e #ases on !"ic" t"e Justice 4ecretar- do!ngraded t"e c"arges against Jovito and e<cluded Jai e t"erefro . (t ust #e noted t"at t"e 19 6ove #er 1..' Order of Judge Cru) granting t"e otion of t"e prosecution to 3it"dra! t"e (nfor ation for %urder and ,rustrated %urder !as in effect an affir ation #- t"e trial court of t"e Justice 4ecretar-2s directive to do!ngrade t"e cri es against Jovito and to e<clude Jai e fro t"ese cri es. 7s discussed earlier, suc" grant #- Judge Cru), a#sent an- independent evaluation on "is part of t"e erits of t"e resolution of t"e Justice 4ecretar-, constituted an a#dication of "is po!er, rendering t"e said Order void. $"e rule in t"is 8urisdiction is t"at orders !"ic" are void can never attain finalit-. Besides, assu ing arguendo t"at t"e 19 6ove #er 1..' Order !as valid, t"e sa e could not "ave an adverse effect on t"e ' Dece #er &00> Order of Judge 5idalgo. 7s "as #een noted, a ti el- otion for reconsideration !as filed on t"e 19 6ove #er 1..' Order and Judge Cru) erel- stated t"erein t"at "e could not resolve t"e erits of t"e dropping of Jai e fro all t"e cases and t"e do!ngrading of t"e cri es c"arged since t"e su#8ect cases !ere alread- transferred to Judge 5idalgo. (n t"e su#8ect order of Judge Cru), "e even stated t"at t"e said issues could onl- #e resolved #- Judge 5idalgo, #efore !"o t"e cases !ere pending. (n ot"er !ords, since Judge Cru) !as divested of 8urisdiction, t"e issue of t"e dropping of Jai e fro all c"arges and t"e do!ngrading of t"e c"arges against Jovito !as not resolved #t"e 19 6ove #er 1..' Order. (t !as t"erefore proper for Judge 5idalgo to resolve suc" issue since "e "ad 8urisdiction over t"e cases.

:nconvinced of t"e correctness of t"e dis issal of t"e c"arges against Jai e and t"e do!ngrading of t"e c"arges against Jovito, /ourdes and *dison oved for a reconsideration. $"e- as;ed t"e R$C to aintain t"e infor ations for urder and frustrated urder against Jovito and Jai e and as;ed t"e R$C to deter ine t"e e<istence of pro#a#le cause for t"ese c"arges, pursuant to t"e ruling in Crespo v. %ogul, !"ic" ruled t"at once an infor ation is filed in court, t"e disposition of said case lies in t"e discretion of t"e trial court. (n t"e eanti e, t"e cases !ere re-raffled to Branc" +' of t"e %anila R$C presided over #- Judge =icente 7. 5idalgo 0Judge 5idalgo1. On +0 7pril 1..9, /ourdes and *dison filed t"is ti e #efore Judge 5idalgo a %otion for t"e 7 end ent of t"e (nfor ations for 5o icide and ,rustrated 5o icide, i.e., t"at t"e R$C s"ould assert its aut"orit- over said cases, independentl- of t"e opinion of t"e 4ecretar- of Justice, and a;e its o!n assess ent !"et"er t"ere is sufficient evidence to "old #ot" Jai e and Jovito lia#le for t"e cri e of urder and frustrated urder. (n an Order dated ' Dece #er &00>, Judge 5idalgo, after a;ing "is o!n assess ent of t"e docu ents presented #- #ot" t"e prosecution and t"e defense, granted t"e otion and ordered t"e reinstate ent of t"e infor ations for urder and frustrated urder. On &? 7pril &00@, Jai e and Jovito filed a otion for reconsideration. $"e- argued t"at t"e R$C "ad no aut"orit- to a;e its o!n independent findings of facts to deter ine pro#a#le cause against t"e , apart fro t"e findings ade #- t"e 4ecretar- of Justice. Judge 5idalgo denied t"e said otion, opining t"at t"e R$C "ad t"e po!er and dut- to a;e an evaluation to deter ine t"e e<istence of pro#a#le cause for t"e c"arges, independent of t"e opinion of t"e 4ecretar- of Justice. Jai e t"en filed a petition for certiorari and pro"i#ition !it" t"e Court of 7ppeals. (n a Decision dated &> Januar- &00', t"e Court of 7ppeals granted Jai es2 petition and nullified t"e ' Dece #er &00> Order of Judge 5idalgo, ruling t"at t"e sa e !ere issued in grave a#use of discretion a ounting to e<cess of 8urisdiction. (n nullif-ing Judge 5idalgo2s Order, t"e Court of 7ppeals "eld t"at Crespo !as not applica#le to t"e instant case, since Judge 5idalgo, unli;e in t"e Crespo case, !as not confronted !it" a otion to dis iss or tas;ed to convict or to acAuit an accused. (t aintained t"at t"e trial court could onl- e<ercise its sound discretion on !"at to do !it" cases filed #efore it in line !it" Crespo, !"en t"ere !as a pleading calling for t"e dis issal, conviction or acAuittal of t"e accused. 4ince /ourdes and *dison2s %otion for t"e 7 end ent of t"e (nfor ations for 5o icide and ,rustrated 5o icide filed on +0 7pril 1..9 !as not a otion to dis iss nor one ai ed at convicting or acAuitting t"e accused, t"en Crespo found no relevance.

Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses - Case Digest || Castro, Boco G.R. No. 172372 De+e,ber -, 2009 co plain t"at "e !as deprived of "is rig"t to #e infor ed of t"e nature of t"e accusation against "i . 3e "ave repeatedl- "eld t"at t"e date of t"e co ission of rape is not an essential ele ent of t"e cri e. (t is not necessar- to state t"e precise ti e !"en t"e offense !as co itted e<cept !"en ti e is a aterial ingredient of t"e offense. (n statutor- rape, ti e is not an essential ele ent e<cept to prove t"at t"e victi !as a inor #elo! t!elve -ears of age at t"e ti e of t"e co ission of t"e offense. Fiven t"e victi 2s esta#lis"ed date of #irt", s"e !as definitel- s"ort of 1& -ears under t"e allegations of t"e (nfor ation and on t"e #asis of t"e evidence adduced. %oreover, o#8ections relating to t"e for of t"e co plaint or infor ation cannot #e ade for t"e first ti e on appeal. (f t"e appellant "ad found t"e (nfor ation insufficient, "e s"ould "ave oved #efore arraign ent eit"er for a #ill of particulars, for "i to #e properl- infor ed of t"e e<act date of t"e alleged rape, or for t"e Auas"al of t"e (nfor ation, on t"e ground t"at it did not confor !it" t"e prescri#ed for . ,ailing to pursue eit"er re ed-, "e is dee ed to "ave !aived o#8ection to an- for al defect in t"e (nfor ation. Other matters: Rape under paragrap" + of t"is article is ter ed statutor- rape as it departs fro t"e usual odes of co itting rape. 3"at t"e la! punis"es in statutor- rape is carnal ;no!ledge of a !o an below twelve (12) years old. $"us, force, inti idation and p"-sical evidence of in8ur- are not relevant considerationsD t"e onl- su#8ect of inAuir- is t"e age of t"e !o an and !"et"er carnal ;no!ledge too; place. ++ $"e la! presu es t"at t"e victi does not and cannot "ave a !ill of "er o!n on account of "er tender -earsD t"e c"ild2s consent is i aterial #ecause of "er presu ed incapacit- to discern good fro evil. 777, !"ile recounting "er unfortunate ordeal, positivel- identified t"e appellant as t"e perpetrator of t"e June 19, 1..@ rapeD s"e never !avered in t"is identification. 3"at t"e la! punis"es in statutor- rape is carnal ;no!ledge of a !o an #elo! t!elve 01&1 -ears old. $"us, force, inti idation, and p"-sical evidence of in8ur- are i aterialD t"e onl- su#8ect of inAuir- is t"e age of t"e !o an and !"et"er carnal ;no!ledge too; place. $"e la! presu es t"at t"e victi does not and cannot "ave a !ill of "er o!n on account of "er tender -earsD t"e c"ild2s consent is i aterial #ecause of "er presu ed incapacit- to discern evil fro good. -(n "is defense, t"e appellant invo;ed denial. 5e denied raping t"e victi on June 19, 1..@ and on t"e first !ee; of Jul- 1..@, #ut ad itted "aving a consensual se<ual intercourse !it" 777 on %arc" +0, 1..?. 3e s"all onl- discuss t"e incidents of June 19, 1..@ and of t"e first !ee; of Jul- 1..@ 0su#8ect of Cri inal Case 6os. 9@+9 and 9@+.1, as t"e appellant "ad alread- #een acAuitted in Cri inal Case 6o. 9@>0. (t is settled t"at denial is an in"erentl- !ea; defense. (t cannot prevail over positive identification, unless supported #- strong evidence of lac; of guilt. (n t"e conte<t of t"is case, t"e appellant2s ere denial, unsupported #- an- ot"er evidence, cannot overco e t"e c"ild-victi 2s positive declaration on t"e identitand involve ent of t"e appellant in t"e cri e attri#uted to "i . +. T'E .EO.LE OF T'E .'#L#..#NES, Plaintiff-7ppellee, vs.RO%AR TEODORO y /ALLE$O, 7ccused7ppellant. FA&TS( $"e prosecution c"arged Ro ar $eodoro #efore t"e R$C of Batangas Cit- of t"e cri e of rape under t"ree separate (nfor ations: &r0,0!a1 &a*e No. 8538 $"at on or a#out t"e 19t" da- of June, 1..@, in t"e orning t"ereof, at Baranga- Poo; ni Banal, %unicipalit- of 4an Pascual, Province of Batangas, P"ilippines and !it"in t"e 8urisdiction of t"is 5onora#le Court, t"e a#ove-na ed accused, #- eans of force and inti idation, did t"en and t"ere !illfull-, unla!full- and feloniousl- lie !it" and "ave carnal ;no!ledge !it" t"e said B777C !"o is #elo! t!elve 01&1 -ears old, against "er !ill and consent. &r0,0!a1 &a*e No. 8539 ,or t"e sa e cri e against 777 t"at allegedl- occurred so eti e in t"e first !ee; of Jul- 1..@. &r0,0!a1 &a*e No. 85-0 ,or t"e sa e cri e against 777 t"at allegedl- occurred so eti e on or a#out t"e +0t" da- of %arc", 1..?, at a#out 10:00 o2cloc; in t"e evening. $"e appellant pleaded not guilt- to t"e c"arges laid. $"e prosecution presented t"e follo!ing !itnesses in t"e trial on t"e erits t"at follo!ed: Dr. Rosalina Caraan-%endo)a 0Dr. %endo)a1D Donna Catapang 0Donna1D and 777. $"e appellant too; t"e !itness stand for t"e defense. Dr. %endo)a, t"e %unicipal 5ealt" Officer of 4an Pascual, Batangas, testified t"at s"e conducted a edical e<a ination of 777 on %arc" +1, 1..?, ' and found t"e vaginal s ear positive for t"e presence of sper cells. 777 declared on t"e !itness stand t"at s"e !as #orn on Jul- &1, 1.9+. 4"e ;ne! t"e appellant since 1..+ #ecause t"e latter !as an e plo-ee of "er parents. 777 recalled to t"e court t"e incidents t"at occurred on June 19, 1..@, during t"e first !ee; of Jul- 1..@, and at around 10:00 P% of %arc" +0 1..?. On t"e last date, 7772s #rot"er sa! t"e incident and reported it to t"eir ot"er. $"e appellant presented a different version of t"e events and clai ed t"at 777 "ad #een "is s!eet"eart since June &&, 1..?. 5e denied using force on 777 and clai ed t"at t"e se<ual intercourse #et!een t"e on %arc" +0, 1..? !as consensual. $"e R$C convicted t"e appellant of t!o 0&1 counts of statutor- rape in its decision of ,e#ruar- 1., &001. $"e accused, "o!ever, is acAuitted in Cri inal Case 6o. 9@>0, as t"is Court finds "i innocent of t"e cri e c"arged. $"e C7 affir ed in toto t"e R$C decision. #SSUES( 3"et"er t"e (nfor ation in Cri inal Case 6o. 9@+. !as defective for failure to state t"e e<act date of t"e co ission of t"e cri e. 'ELD( 6o. 7n infor ation, under 4ection ?, Rule 110 of t"e &000 Revised Rules on Cri inal Procedure, is dee ed sufficient if it states t"e na e of t"e accusedD t"e designation of t"e offense given #- t"e statuteD t"e acts or o issions co plained of as constituting t"e offenseD t"e na e of t"e offended part-D t"e appro<i ate date of t"e co ission of t"e offenseD and t"e place !"ere t"e offense !as co itted. 4ection 11 of t"e sa e Rule also provides t"at it is not necessar- to state in t"e co plaint or infor ation t"e precise date t"e offense !as co itted, e<cept !"en t"e date of co ission is a aterial ele ent of t"e offense. $"e offense a- t"us #e alleged to "ave #een co itted on a date as near as possi#le to t"e actual date of its co ission. 7t t"e ini u , an indict ent ust contain all t"e essential ele ents of t"e offense c"arged to ena#le t"e accused to properl- eet t"e c"arge and dul- prepare for "is defense. (n t"e present case, t"e (nfor ation in Cri inal Case 6o. 9@+. states t"at t"e offense !as co itted Ein t"e first !ee; of Jul- 1..@ED it li;e!ise alleged t"at t"e victi !as E#elo! 1& -ears oldE at t"e ti e of t"e incident. $"ese allegations sufficientl- infor ed t"e appellant t"at "e !as #eing c"arged of rape of a c"ild !"o !as #elo! 1& -ears of age. 7fforded adeAuate opportunit- to prepare "is defense, "e cannot no!

Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses - Case Digest || Castro, Boco G.R. No. 182277 Au3u*4 3, 2010 $OSE ANTON#O &. LE/#STE, Petitioner, vs. 'ON. EL%O %. ALA%EDA, 'ON. RAUL %. GON ALE , 'ON. E%%ANUEL ). /ELAS&O, 'E#RS OF T'E LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS, Respondents. FA&TS( Petitioner !as, #- (nfor ation of Januar- 1?, &00', c"arged !it" "o icide for t"e deat" of Rafael de las 7las on Januar- 1&, &00' #efore t"e Regional $rial Court 0R$C1 of %a;ati Cit-. 7fter petitioner posted a P>0,000 cas" #ond !"ic" t"e trial court approved, "e !as released fro detention, and "is arraign ent !as set on Januar- &>, &00'. $"e private co plainants-"eirs of De las 7las filed, !it" t"e confor it- of t"e pu#lic prosecutor, an :rgent O ni#us %otion pra-ing, inter alia, for t"e defer ent of t"e proceedings to allo! t"e pu#lic prosecutor to re-e<a ine t"e evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to deter ine t"e proper offense. $"e R$C t"ereafter issued t"e 011 Order of Januar- &>, &00' deferring petitioner2s arraign ent and allo!ing t"e prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation to deter ine t"e proper offense and su# it a reco endation !it"in +0 da-s fro its inception, inter aliaD and 0&1 Order of Januar- +1, &00' den-ing reconsideration of t"e first order. Petitioner assailed t"ese orders via certiorari and pro"i#ition #efore t"e Court of 7ppeals. %eanti e, petitioner filed an :rgent *<-Parte %anifestation and %otion #efore t"e trial court to defer acting on t"e pu#lic prosecutor2s reco endation on t"e proper offense until after t"e appellate court resolves "is application for in8unctive reliefs, or alternativel-, to grant "i ti e to co ent on t"e prosecutor2s reco endation and t"ereafter set a "earing for t"e 8udicial deter ination of pro#a#le cause. Petitioner also separatel- oved for t"e in"i#ition of Judge 7la eda !it" pra-er to defer action on t"e ad ission of t"e 7 ended (nfor ation. $"e trial court nonet"eless issued t"e ot"er assailed orders, vi): 011 Order of ,e#ruar- ', &00' t"at ad itted t"e 7 ended (nfor ation for urder and directed t"e issuance of a !arrant of arrestD and 0&1 Order of ,e#ruar- 9, &00' !"ic" set t"e arraign ent on ,e#ruar- 1+, &00'. Petitioner Auestioned t"ese t!o orders via supple ental petition #efore t"e appellate court. $"e trial court, a#sent an- !rit of preli inar- in8unction fro t"e appellate court, !ent on to tr- petitioner under t"e 7 ended (nfor ation. B- Decision of Januar- 1>, &00., t"e trial court found petitioner guilt- of "o icide. $"e 8udg ent convicting petitioner of "o icide under t"e 7 ended (nfor ation for urder operates as a supervening event t"at ooted t"e present petition. 7ssu ing t"at t"ere is ground to annul t"e finding of pro#a#le cause for urder, t"ere is no practical use or value in a#rogating t"e concluded proceedings and retr-ing t"e case under t"e original (nfor ation for "o icide 8ust to arrive, ore li;el- or even definitel-, at t"e sa e conviction of "o icide. %ootness !ould "ave also set in "ad petitioner #een convicted of urder, for proof #e-ond reasona#le dou#t, !"ic" is uc" "ig"er t"an pro#a#le cause, !ould "ave #een esta#lis"ed in t"at instance. (n t"e present case, t"ere is co pelling reason to clarif- t"e re edies availa#le #efore and after t"e filing of an infor ation in cases su#8ect of inAuest. #! 50* 60r*4 a**03!,e!4 o6 error , petitioner posits t"at t"e prosecution "as no rig"t under t"e Rules to see; fro t"e trial court an investigation or reevaluation of t"e case e<cept t"roug" a petition for revie! #efore t"e Depart ent of Justice 0DOJ1. (n cases !"en an accused is arrested !it"out a !arrant, petitioner contends t"at t"e re ed- of preli inar- investigation #elongs onl- to t"e accused. $"e contention lac;s erit. 4ection ?, Rule 11& of t"e Rules of Court reads: 3"en a person is la!full- arrested !it"out a !arrant involving an offense !"ic" reAuires a preli inarinvestigation, t"e co plaint or infor ation a- #e filed #- a prosecutor !it"out need of suc" investigation provided an inAuest "as #een conducted in accordance !it" e<isting rules . (n t"e a#sence or unavaila#ilitof an inAuest prosecutor, t"e co plaint a- #e filed #- t"e offended part- or a peace officer directl- !it" t"e proper court on t"e #asis of t"e affidavit of t"e offended part- or arresting officer or person. Before t"e co plaint or infor ation is filed, t"e person arrested a- as; for a preli inar- investigation in accordance !it" t"is Rule, #ut "e ust sign a !aiver of t"e provisions of 7rticle 1&@ of t"e Revised Penal Code, as a ended, in t"e presence of "is counsel. 6ot!it"standing t"e !aiver, "e a- appl- for #ail and t"e investigation ust #e ter inated !it"in fifteen 01@1 da-s fro its inception. 7fter t"e filing of t"e co plaint or infor ation in court !it"out a preli inar- investigation, t"e accused a-, !it"in five 0@1 da-s fro t"e ti e "e learns of its filing, as; for a preli inar- investigation !it" t"e sa e rig"t to adduce evidence in "is defense as provided in t"is Rule. 7 preli inar- investigation is reAuired #efore t"e filing of a co plaint or infor ation for an offense !"ere t"e penalt- prescri#ed #- la! is at least four -ears, t!o ont"s and one da- !it"out regard to fine. 7s an e<ception, t"e rules provide t"at t"ere is no need for a preli inar- investigation in cases of a la!ful arrest !it"out a !arrant involving suc" t-pe of offense, so long as an inAuest, !"ere availa#le, "as #een conducted. (nAuest is defined as an infor al and su ar- investigation conducted #- a pu#lic prosecutor in cri inal cases involving persons arrested and detained !it"out t"e #enefit of a !arrant of arrest issued #- t"e court for t"e purpose of deter ining !"et"er said persons s"ould re ain under custod- and correspondingl- #e c"arged in court. (t is i perative to first ta;e a closer loo; at t"e predica ent of #ot" t"e arrested person and t"e private co plainant during t"e #rief period of inAuest, to grasp t"e respective re edies availa#le to t"e #efore and after t"e filing of a co plaint or infor ation in court. B*,OR* $5* ,(/(6F O, CO%P/7(6$ OR (6,OR%7$(O6 (6 CO:R$, t"e private co plainant aproceed in coordinating !it" t"e arresting officer and t"e inAuest officer during t"e latter2s conduct of inAuest. %ean!"ile, t"e arrested person "as t"e option to avail of a 1@-da- preli inar- investigation, provided "e dul- signs a !aiver of an- o#8ection against dela- in "is deliver- to t"e proper 8udicial aut"orities under 7rticle 1&@ of t"e Revised Penal Code. ,or o#vious reasons, t"is re ed- is not availa#le to t"e private co plainant since "e cannot !aive !"at "e does not "ave. $"e #enefit of t"e provisions of 7rticle 1&@, !"ic" reAuires t"e filing of a co plaint or infor ation !it" t"e proper 8udicial aut"orities !it"in t"e applica#le period, #elongs to t"e arrested person. $"e accelerated process of inAuest, o!ing to its su ar- nature and t"e attendant ris; of running against 7rticle 1&@, ends !it" eit"er t"e pro pt filing of an infor ation in court or t"e i ediate release of t"e arrested person. 6ota#l-, t"e rules on inAuest do not provide for a otion for reconsideration. Contrar- to petitioner2s position t"at private co plainant s"ould "ave appealed to t"e DOJ 4ecretar-, suc" re ed- is not i ediatel- availa#le in cases su#8ect of inAuest. 6ote!ort"- is t"e proviso t"at t"e appeal to t"e DOJ 4ecretar- is #- Epetition #- a proper part- under suc" rules as t"e Depart ent of Justice a- prescri#e. $"e rule referred to is t"e &000 6ational Prosecution 4ervice Rule on 7ppeal, 4ection 1 of !"ic" provides t"at t"e Rule s"all Eappl- to appeals fro resolutions < < < in cases su#8ect of preli inar- investigationG reinvestigation.E (n cases su#8ect of inAuest, t"erefore, t"e private part- s"ould first avail of a preli inar- investigation or reinvestigation, if an-, #efore elevating t"e atter to t"e DOJ 4ecretar-. (n case t"e inAuest proceedings -ield no pro#a#le cause, t"e private co plainant t"roug" t"e regular course of a preli inar- investigation. a- pursue t"e case

O6C* 7 CO%P/7(6$ OR (6,OR%7$(O6 (4 ,(/*D (6 CO:R$, t"e rules -et provide t"e accused !it" anot"er opportunit- to as; for a preli inar- investigation !it"in five da-s fro t"e ti e "e learns of its filing. $"e Rules of Court and t"e 6e! Rules on (nAuest are silent, "o!ever, on !"et"er t"e private co plainant could invo;e, as respondent "eirs of t"e victi did in t"e present case, a si ilar rig"t to as; for a reinvestigation. $"e Court "olds t"at t"e private co plainant can ensuing disAuisition. ove for reinvestigation, su#8ect to and in lig"t of t"e

7ll cri inal actions co enced #- a co plaint or infor ation s"all #e prosecuted under t"e direction and control of t"e pu#lic prosecutor. $"e private co plainant in a cri inal case is erel- a !itness and not a part- to t"e case and cannot, #- "i self, as; for t"e reinvestigation of t"e case after t"e infor ation "ad #een filed in court, t"e proper part- for t"at #eing t"e pu#lic prosecutor !"o "as t"e control of t"e prosecution of t"e case. $"us, in cases !"ere t"e private co plainant is allo!ed to intervene #- counsel in t"e cri inal action, and is granted t"e aut"orit- to prosecute, t"e private co plainant, #- counsel and !it" t"e confor it- of t"e pu#lic prosecutor, can file a otion for reinvestigation. $"e prosecution2s discretion is not #oundless or infinite, "o!ever. $"e standing principle is t"at once an infor ation is filed in court, an- re edial easure suc" as a reinvestigation ust #e addressed to t"e sound discretion of t"e court. (nterestingl-, petitioner supports t"is vie!. (ndeed, t"e Court ruled in one case t"at: $"e rule is no! !ell settled t"at once a co plaint or infor ation is filed in court, an- disposition of t"e case, !"et"er as to its dis issal or t"e conviction or t"e acAuittal of t"e accused, rests in t"e sound discretion of t"e court. 7lt"oug" t"e prosecutor retains t"e direction and control of t"e prosecution of

Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses - Case Digest || Castro, Boco cri inal cases even !"en t"e case is alread- in court, "e cannot i pose "is opinion upon t"e tri#unal. ,or !"ile it is true t"at t"e prosecutor "as t"e Auasi-8udicial discretion to deter ine !"et"er or not a cri inal case s"ould #e filed in court, once t"e case "ad alread- #een #roug"t t"erein an- disposition t"e prosecutor a- dee proper t"ereafter s"ould #e addressed to t"e court for its consideration and approval. $"e onl- Aualification is t"at t"e action of t"e court ust not i pair t"e su#stantial rig"ts of t"e accused or t"e rig"t of t"e People to due process of la!. (n suc" an instance, #efore a re-investigation of t"e case a- #e conducted #- t"e pu#lic prosecutor, t"e per ission or consent of t"e court ust #e secured. (f after suc" re-investigation t"e prosecution finds a cogent #asis to !it"dra! t"e infor ation or ot"er!ise cause t"e dis issal of t"e case, suc" proposed course of action a- #e ta;en #ut s"all li;e!ise #e addressed to t"e sound discretion of t"e court. Once t"e trial court grants t"e prosecution2s otion for reinvestigation, t"e for er is dee ed to "ave deferred to t"e aut"orit- of t"e prosecutorial ar of t"e Fovern ent. 5aving #roug"t t"e case #ac; to t"e dra!ing #oard, t"e prosecution is t"us eAuipped !it" discretion H !ide and far reac"ing H regarding t"e disposition t"ereof, su#8ect to t"e trial court2s approval of t"e resulting proposed course of action. 4ince a reinvestigation a- entail a odification of t"e cri inal infor ation as !"at "appened in t"e present case, t"e Court2s "olding is #olstered #- t"e rule on a end ent of an infor ation under 4ection 1>, Rule 110 of t"e Rules of Court: A +o,71a0!4 or 0!6or,a40o! ,ay be a,e!"e", 0! 6or, or 0! *ub*4a!+e, 8045ou4 1ea9e o6 +our4, a4 a!y 40,e be6ore 45e a++u*e" e!4er* 50* 71ea. 7fter t"e plea and during t"e trial, a for al a end ent aonl- #e ade !it" leave of court and !"en it can #e done !it"out causing pre8udice to t"e rig"ts of t"e accused. 5o!ever, an- a end ent #efore plea, !"ic" do!ngrades t"e nature of t"e offense c"arged in or e<cludes an- accused fro t"e co plaint or infor ation, can #e ade onl- upon otion #- t"e prosecutor, !it" notice to t"e offended part- and !it" leave of court. $"e court s"all state its reasons in resolving t"e otion and copies of its order s"all #e furnis"ed all parties, especiall- t"e offended part-. (f it appears at an- ti e #efore 8udg ent t"at a ista;e "as #een ade in c"arging t"e proper offense, t"e court s"all dis iss t"e original co plaint or infor ation upon t"e filing of a ne! one c"arging t"e proper offense in accordance !it" section 11, Rule 11., provided t"e accused !ould not #e placed in dou#le 8eopard-. $"e court a- reAuire t"e !itnesses to give #ail for t"eir appearance at t"e trial. (n fine, #efore t"e accused enters a plea, a for al or su#stantial a end ent of t"e co plaint or infor ation a- #e ade !it"out leave of court. 7fter t"e entr- of a plea, onl- a for al a end ent a#e ade #ut !it" leave of court and onl- if it does not pre8udice t"e rig"ts of t"e accused. 7fter arraign ent, a su#stantial a end ent is proscri#ed e<cept if t"e sa e is #eneficial to t"e accused. (t ust #e clarified t"oug" t"at not all defects in an infor ation are cura#le #- a end ent prior to entr- of plea. 7n infor ation !"ic" is void ab initio cannot #e a ended to o#viate a ground for Auas"al. 7n a end ent !"ic" operates to vest 8urisdiction upon t"e trial court is li;e!ise i per issi#le. Considering t"e general rule t"at an infor ation a- #e a ended even in su#stance and even !it"out leave of court at an- ti e #efore entr- of plea, does it ean t"at t"e conduct of a reinvestigation at t"at stage is a ere superfluit-I (t is not. 7n- re edial easure springing fro t"e reinvestigation H #e it a co plete disposition or an inter ediate odification of t"e c"arge H is eventuall- addressed to t"e sound discretion of t"e trial court, !"ic" ust a;e an independent evaluation or assess ent of t"e erits of t"e case. 4ince t"e trial court !ould ulti atel- a;e t"e deter ination on t"e proposed course of action, it is for t"e prosecution to consider !"et"er a reinvestigation is necessar- to adduce and revie! t"e evidence for purposes of #uttressing t"e appropriate otion to #e filed in court. %ore i portantl-, reinvestigation is reAuired in cases involving a su#stantial a end ent of t"e infor ation. Due process of la! de ands t"at no su#stantial a end ent of an infor ation a- #e ad itted !it"out conducting anot"er or a ne! preli inar- investigation. (n Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan, t"e Court ruled t"at a su#stantial a end ent in an infor ation entitles an accused to anot"er preli inar- investigation, unless t"e a ended infor ation contains a c"arge related to or is included in t"e original (nfor ation. #SSUE( 3"et"er t"e a end ent of t"e (nfor ation fro "o icide to urder is considered a su#stantial a end ent, !"ic" !ould a;e it not 8ust a rig"t #ut a dut- of t"e prosecution to as; for a preli inarinvestigation. 'ELD( )e* A *ub*4a!40a1 a,e!",e!4 +o!*0*4* o6 45e re+04a1 o6 6a+4* +o!*404u40!3 45e o66e!*e +5ar3e" a!" "e4er,0!a409e o6 45e :ur0*"0+40o! o6 45e +our4. 7ll ot"er atters are erel- of for . $"e follo!ing "ave #een "eld to #e ere6or,a1 a,e!",e!4*: 011 ne! allegations !"ic" relate onl- to t"e range of t"e penalt- t"at t"e court ig"t i pose in t"e event of convictionD 0&1 an a end ent !"ic" does not c"arge anot"er offense different or distinct fro t"at c"arged in t"e original oneD 0+1 additional allegations !"ic" do not alter t"e prosecution2s t"eor- of t"e case so as to cause surprise to t"e accused and affect t"e for of defense "e "as or !ill assu eD 0>1 an a end ent !"ic" does not adversel- affect ansu#stantial rig"t of t"e accusedD and 0@1 an a end ent t"at erel- adds specifications to eli inate vagueness in t"e infor ation and not to introduce ne! and aterial facts , and erel- states !it" additional precision so et"ing !"ic" is alread- contained in t"e original infor ation and !"ic" adds not"ing essential for conviction for t"e cri e c"arged. $"e test as to !"et"er a defendant is pre8udiced #- t"e a end ent is !"et"er a defense under t"e infor ation as it originall- stood !ould #e availa#le after t"e a end ent is ade, and !"et"er anevidence defendant ig"t "ave !ould #e eAuall- applica#le to t"e infor ation in t"e one for as in t"e ot"er. 7n a end ent to an infor ation !"ic" does not c"ange t"e nature of t"e cri e alleged t"erein does not affect t"e essence of t"e offense or cause surprise or deprive t"e accused of an opportunit- to eet t"e ne! aver ent "ad eac" #een "eld to #e one of for and not of su#stance. (n one case, it !as sAuarel- "eld t"at t"e a end ent of t"e (nfor ation fro "o icide to urder is Eone of su#stance !it" ver- serious conseAuences.E $"e a end ent involved in t"e present case consists of additional aver ents of t"e circu stances of treac"er-, evident pre editation, and cruelt-, !"ic" Aualift"e offense c"arged fro "o icide to urder. (t #eing a ne! and aterial ele ent of t"e offense, petitioner s"ould #e given t"e c"ance to adduce evidence on t"e atter. 6ot #eing erel- clarificator-, t"e a end ent essentiall- varies t"e prosecution2s original t"eor- of t"e case and certainl- affects not 8ust t"e for #ut t"e !eig"t of defense to #e ustered #- petitioner. Considering t"at anot"er or a ne! preli inar- investigation is reAuired, t"e fact t"at !"at !as conducted in t"e present case !as a reinvestigation does not invalidate t"e su#stantial a end ent of t"e (nfor ation. $"ere is no s bstantial distin!tion between a "reliminary investigation and a reinvestigation since #ot" are conducted in t"e sa e anner and for t"e sa e o#8ective of deter ining !"et"er t"ere e<ists sufficient ground to engender a !ell-founded #elief t"at a cri e "as #een co itted and t"e respondent is pro#a#l- guilt- t"ereof and s"ould #e "eld for trial. 3"at is essential is t"at petitioner !as placed on guard to defend "i self fro t"e c"arge of urder after t"e clai ed circu stances !ere ade ;no!n to "i as earl- as t"e first otion.