G.R. No. 182677 ; August 3, 2010
JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, HON. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas. After posting bail and being released, his arraignment was set. The private complainants, with the prosecutor’s conformity, filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, deferring the arraignment and allowing a reinvestigation. Petitioner assailed these orders via certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
During the pendency of his CA petition, the public prosecutor, after reinvestigation, recommended the filing of an Amended Information for murder. The RTC admitted the amended information, issued a warrant of arrest, and set a new arraignment date. Petitioner filed a supplemental petition challenging these subsequent orders. The CA dismissed his consolidated petitions. Petitioner thus filed this petition for review, arguing the reinvestigation was improper after the information was filed and that the judge should have held a hearing for judicial determination of probable cause.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) granting the reinvestigation after the information was filed and the accused had posted bail; and (2) admitting the Amended Information and issuing a warrant of arrest without conducting a judicial determination of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that a reinvestigation may be conducted even after an information is filed and the accused has posted bail. The trial court has the discretion to allow a reinvestigation upon motion, especially when sought by the prosecution to prevent a miscarriage of justice, such as to correct a possible error in the charge. The filing of an information does not preclude the prosecution from rectifying errors. Petitioner’s active participation in the subsequent trial did not waive his right to challenge these procedural steps, as he raised his objections before arraignment.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that a judge is not mandated to personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest when the information is amended. The judge may rely on the prosecutor’s resolution and the amended information itself. A judicial determination of probable cause is not a full-blown trial; it is an executive function primarily vested in the prosecutor. The judge’s role is to personally evaluate the prosecutor’s findings and supporting evidence. In this case, the RTC judge performed this evaluation by reviewing the amended information and the prosecutor’s resolution, finding sufficient basis to issue a warrant. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the judge’s actions.