8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

TodayisSunday,August09,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.182677August3,2010
JOSEANTONIOC.LEVISTE,Petitioner,
vs.
HON.ELMOM.ALAMEDA,HON.RAULM.GONZALEZ,HON.EMMANUELY.VELASCO,HEIRSOFTHE
LATERAFAELDELASALAS,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
JoseAntonioC.Leviste(petitioner)assailsviathepresentpetitionforreviewfiledonMay30,2008theAugust30,
2007Decision1andtheApril18,2008Resolution2oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.97761thataffirmed
thetrialcourtsOrdersofJanuary24,31,February7,8,allin2007,anddeniedthemotionforreconsideration,
respectively.
Petitionerwas,byInformation3ofJanuary16,2007,chargedwithhomicideforthedeathofRafaeldelasAlason
January12,2007beforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMakatiCity.Branch150towhichthecasewasraffled,
presidedbyJudgeElmoAlameda,forthwithissuedacommitmentorder4againstpetitionerwhowasplacedunder
policecustodywhileconfinedattheMakatiMedicalCenter.5
AfterpetitionerpostedaP40,000cashbondwhichthetrialcourtapproved,6hewasreleasedfromdetention,and
hisarraignmentwassetonJanuary24,2007.
The private complainantsheirs of De las Alas filed, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent
OmnibusMotion7 praying, interalia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re
examinetheevidenceonrecordortoconductareinvestigationtodeterminetheproperoffense.
TheRTCthereafterissuedthe(1)OrderofJanuary24,20078deferringpetitionersarraignmentandallowingthe
prosecutiontoconductareinvestigationtodeterminetheproperoffenseandsubmitarecommendationwithin30
daysfromitsinception,interaliaand(2)OrderofJanuary31,20079denyingreconsiderationofthefirstorder.
PetitionerassailedtheseordersviacertiorariandprohibitionbeforetheCourtofAppeals.
Meantime, petitioner filed an Urgent ExParte Manifestation and Motion before the trial court to defer acting on
the public prosecutors recommendation on the proper offense until after the appellate court resolves his
application for injunctive reliefs, or alternatively, to grant him time to comment on the prosecutors
recommendation and thereafter set a hearing for the judicial determination of probable cause.10 Petitioner also
separately moved for the inhibition of Judge Alameda with prayer to defer action on the admission of the
AmendedInformation.11
Thetrialcourtnonethelessissuedtheotherassailedorders,viz:(1)OrderofFebruary7,200712 that admitted
the Amended Information13 for murder and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest and (2) Order of
February8,200714whichsetthearraignmentonFebruary13,2007.Petitionerquestionedthesetwoordersvia
supplementalpetitionbeforetheappellatecourt.
Theappellatecourtdismissedpetitionerspetition,hence,hispresentpetition,arguingthat:
PRIVATERESPONDENTDIDNOTHAVETHERIGHTTOCAUSETHEREINVESTIGATIONOFTHE
CRIMINALCASEBELOWWHENTHECRIMINALINFORMATIONHADALREADYBEENFILEDWITH
THE LOWER COURT. HENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN
FINDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT ACT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

1/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

GRANTINGSUCHREINVESTIGATIONDESPITEHAVINGNOBASISINTHERULESOFCOURT[]
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ADMITTING STATE
PROSECUTOR VELASCOS AMENDED INFORMATION, ISSUING A WARRANT OF ARREST, AND
SETTING THE CASE BELOW FOR ARRAIGNMENT, CONSIDERING THAT THE VALIDITY AND
LEGALITY OF HIS ORDERS DATED 24 AND 31 JANUARY 2007, WHICH LED TO THE
QUESTIONABLEREINVESTIGATIONANDILLEGALAMENDEDINFORMATION[,]AREYETTOBE
RESOLVEDBYTHISHONORABLECOURT(sic)[AND]
CONSIDERING THAT PROSECUTOR VELASCOS FINDINGS IN HIS RESOLUTION DATED 2
FEBRUARY 2007 ARE BLATANTLY BASED ON MERE SPECULATIONS AND CONJECTURES,
WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL NEW EVIDENCE BEING ADDUCED DURING THE
REINVESTIGATION, RESPONDENT JUDGE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ALLOWED PETITIONERS
MOTIONFORAHEARINGFORJUDICIALDETERMINATIONOFPROBABLECAUSE.15(emphasis
intheoriginalomitted)
RecordsshowthatthearraignmentscheduledonMarch21,2007pushedthroughduringwhichpetitionerrefused
toplead,drawingthetrialcourttoenterapleaof"notguilty"forhim.
Prior thereto or on February 23, 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Application for Admission to Bail Ex Abundanti
Cautela16 which the trial court, after hearings thereon, granted by Order of May 21, 2007,17 it finding that the
evidenceofguiltforthecrimeofmurderisnotstrong.Itaccordinglyallowedpetitionertopostbailintheamount
ofP300,000forhisprovisionalliberty.
Thetrialcourt,absentanywritofpreliminaryinjunctionfromtheappellatecourt,wentontotrypetitionerunder
the Amended Information. By Decision of January 14, 2009, the trial court found petitioner guilty of homicide,
sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12
years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. From the Decision, petitioner filed an appeal to the
appellatecourt,docketedasCAG.R.CRNo.32159,duringthependencyofwhichhefiledanurgentapplication
foradmissiontobailpendingappeal.TheappellatecourtdeniedpetitionersapplicationwhichthisCourt,inG.R.
No.189122,affirmedbyDecisionofMarch17,2010.
TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)laterarguedthatthepresentpetitionhadbeenrenderedmootsincethe
presentationofevidence,whereinpetitioneractivelyparticipated,hadbeenconcluded.18
Waiveronthepartoftheaccusedmustbedistinguishedfrommootnessofthepetition, for in the present case,
petitionerdidnot,byhisactiveparticipationinthetrial,waivehisstatedobjections.
Section26,Rule114oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
SEC.26.Bailnotabartoobjectionsonillegalarrest,lackoforirregularpreliminaryinvestigation.Anapplication
fororadmissiontobailshallnotbartheaccusedfromchallengingthevalidityofhisarrestorthelegalityofthe
warrantissuedtherefor,orfromassailingtheregularityorquestioningtheabsenceofapreliminaryinvestigation
of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the
matterasearlyaspracticablebutnotlaterthanthestartofthetrialofthecase.
Byapplyingforbail,petitionerdidnotwaivehisrighttochallengetheregularityofthereinvestigationofthecharge
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
appellatecourt,thuspromptingthetrialcourttoenterapleaof"notguilty"forhim.
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
participatesduringtrial,withoutpreviouslyinvokinghisobjectionsthereto."19Theremustbeclearandconvincing
proof that petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause.
Whentheonlyproofofintentionrestsonwhatapartydoes,hisactshouldbesomanifestlyconsistentwith,and
indicativeof,anintenttovoluntarilyandunequivocallyrelinquishtheparticularrightthatnootherexplanationof
hisconductispossible.20
From the given circumstances, the Court cannot reasonably infer a valid waiver on the part of petitioner to
precludehimfromobtainingadefiniteresolutionoftheobjectionshesotimelyinvoked.Otherthanitsallegation
ofactiveparticipation,theOSGofferednoclearandconvincingproofthatpetitionersparticipationinthetrialwas
unconditionalwiththeintenttovoluntarilyandunequivocallyabandonhispetition.Infact,onJanuary26,2010,
petitionerstillmovedfortheearlyresolutionofthepresentpetition.21
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

2/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

WhateverdelayarisingfrompetitionersavailmentofremediesagainstthetrialcourtsOrderscannotbeimputed
to petitioner to operate as a valid waiver on his part. Neither can the nonissuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction be deemed as a voluntary relinquishment of petitioners principal prayer. The nonissuance of such
injunctivereliefonlymeansthattheappellatecourtdidnotpreliminarilyfindanyexception22tothelongstanding
doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution.23 Consequently, the trial of the case took its
course.
Thepetitionisnowmoot,however,inviewofthetrialcourtsrenditionofjudgment.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening
events,sothatadeclarationthereonwouldbeofnopracticaluseorvalue.24
The judgment convicting petitioner of homicide under the Amended Information for murder operates as a
supervening event that mooted the present petition. Assuming that there is ground25 to annul the finding of
probable cause for murder, there is no practical use or value in abrogating the concluded proceedings and
retrying the case under the original Information for homicide just to arrive, more likely or even definitely, at the
sameconvictionofhomicide.Mootnesswouldhavealsosetinhadpetitionerbeenconvictedofmurder,forproof
beyond reasonable doubt, which is much higher than probable cause, would have been established in that
instance.
Instead,however,ofdenyingthepetitionoutrightonthegroundofmootness,theCourtproceedstoresolvethe
legalissuesinordertoformulatecontrollingprinciplestoguidethebench,barandpublic.26Inthepresentcase,
thereiscompellingreasontoclarifytheremediesavailablebeforeandafterthefilingofaninformationincases
subjectofinquest.
Aftergoingoverintothesubstanceofthepetitionandtheassailedissuances,theCourtfindsnoreversibleerror
on the part of the appellate court in finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the four trial court
Orders.
Inhisfirstassignmentoferror,petitionerpositsthattheprosecutionhasnorightundertheRulestoseekfromthe
trialcourtaninvestigationorreevaluationofthecaseexceptthroughapetitionforreviewbeforetheDepartment
ofJustice(DOJ).Incaseswhenanaccusedisarrestedwithoutawarrant,petitionercontendsthattheremedyof
preliminaryinvestigationbelongsonlytotheaccused.
Thecontentionlacksmerit.
Section6,27Rule112oftheRulesofCourtreads:
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary
investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation
providedaninquesthasbeenconductedinaccordancewithexistingrules.Intheabsenceorunavailabilityofan
inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper
courtonthebasisoftheaffidavitoftheoffendedpartyorarrestingofficerorperson.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in
accordancewiththisRule,buthemustsignawaiveroftheprovisionsofArticle125oftheRevisedPenalCode,
as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
investigationmustbeterminatedwithinfifteen(15)daysfromitsinception.
Afterthefilingofthecomplaintorinformationincourtwithoutapreliminaryinvestigation,theaccusedmay,within
five(5)daysfromthetimehelearnsofitsfiling,askforapreliminaryinvestigationwiththesamerighttoadduce
evidenceinhisdefenseasprovidedinthisRule.(underscoringsupplied)
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.28 As an
exception,therulesprovidethatthereisnoneedforapreliminaryinvestigationincasesofalawfularrestwithout
awarrant29involvingsuchtypeofoffense,solongasaninquest,whereavailable,hasbeenconducted.30
Inquestisdefinedasaninformalandsummaryinvestigationconductedbyapublicprosecutorincriminalcases
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.31
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
afterthefilingofacomplaintorinformationincourt.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

3/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

BEFORETHEFILINGOFCOMPLAINTORINFORMATIONINCOURT,theprivatecomplainantmayproceedin
coordinatingwiththearrestingofficerandtheinquestofficerduringthelattersconductofinquest.Meanwhile,the
arrestedpersonhastheoptiontoavailofa15daypreliminaryinvestigation,providedhedulysignsawaiverof
anyobjectionagainstdelayinhisdeliverytotheproperjudicialauthoritiesunderArticle125oftheRevisedPenal
Code.Forobviousreasons,thisremedyisnotavailabletotheprivatecomplainantsincehecannotwaivewhathe
doesnothave.ThebenefitoftheprovisionsofArticle125,whichrequiresthefilingofacomplaintorinformation
withtheproperjudicialauthoritieswithintheapplicableperiod,32belongstothearrestedperson.
Theacceleratedprocessofinquest,owingtoitssummarynatureandtheattendantriskofrunningagainstArticle
125, ends with either the prompt filing of an information in court or the immediate release of the arrested
person.33Notably,therulesoninquestdonotprovideforamotionforreconsideration.34
Contrary to petitioners position that private complainant should have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such
remedyisnotimmediatelyavailableincasessubjectofinquest.
NoteworthyistheprovisothattheappealtotheDOJSecretaryisby"petitionbyaproperpartyundersuchrules
astheDepartmentofJusticemayprescribe."35Therulereferredtoisthe2000NationalProsecutionServiceRule
onAppeal,36 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.
Incasetheinquestproceedingsyieldnoprobablecause,theprivatecomplainantmaypursuethecasethrough
theregularcourseofapreliminaryinvestigation.
ONCEACOMPLAINTORINFORMATIONISFILEDINCOURT,therulesyetprovidetheaccusedwithanother
opportunitytoaskforapreliminaryinvestigationwithinfivedaysfromthetimehelearnsofitsfiling.TheRulesof
Court and the New Rules on Inquest are silent, however, on whether the private complainant could invoke, as
respondentheirsofthevictimdidinthepresentcase,asimilarrighttoaskforareinvestigation.
TheCourtholdsthattheprivatecomplainantcanmoveforreinvestigation,subjecttoandinlightoftheensuing
disquisition.
Allcriminalactionscommencedbyacomplaintorinformationshallbeprosecutedunderthedirectionandcontrol
ofthepublicprosecutor.37Theprivatecomplainantinacriminalcaseismerelyawitnessandnotapartytothe
caseandcannot,byhimself,askforthereinvestigationofthecaseaftertheinformationhadbeenfiledincourt,
theproperpartyforthatbeingthepublicprosecutorwhohasthecontroloftheprosecutionofthecase.38Thus,in
caseswheretheprivatecomplainantisallowedtointervenebycounselinthecriminalaction,39andisgrantedthe
authoritytoprosecute,40theprivatecomplainant,bycounselandwiththeconformityofthepublicprosecutor,can
fileamotionforreinvestigation.
In fact, the DOJ instructs that before the arraignment of the accused, trial prosecutors must "examine the
Informationvisvistheresolutionoftheinvestigatingprosecutorinordertomakethenecessarycorrectionsor
revisionsandtoensurethattheinformationissufficientinformandsubstance."41
x x x Since no evidence has been presented at that stage, the error would appear or be discoverable from a
review of the records of the preliminary investigation. Of course, that fact may be perceived by the trial judge
himselfbut,again,realisticallyitwillbetheprosecutorwhocaninitiallydeterminethesame. That is why
such error need not be manifest or evident, nor is it required that such nuances as offenses includible in the
offense charged be taken into account. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the prosecutor can and should
instituteremedialmeasures[.]42(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Theprosecutionofcrimesappertainstotheexecutivedepartmentofthegovernmentwhoseprincipalpowerand
responsibilityistoseethatourlawsarefaithfullyexecuted.Anecessarycomponentofthispowertoexecuteour
laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of
discretion the discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of
factorswhicharebestappreciatedbyprosecutors.43
The prosecutions discretion is not boundless or infinite, however.44 The standing principle is that once an
information is filed in court, any remedial measure such as a reinvestigation must be addressed to the sound
discretionofthecourt.Interestingly,petitionersupportsthisview.45Indeed,theCourtruledinonecasethat:
The rule is now well settled that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case,
whetherastoitsdismissalortheconvictionortheacquittaloftheaccused,restsinthesounddiscretionofthe
court. Although the prosecutor retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even when
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

4/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

thecaseisalreadyincourt,hecannotimposehisopinionuponthetribunal.Forwhileitistruethattheprosecutor
has the quasijudicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court, once the
casehadalreadybeenbroughtthereinanydispositiontheprosecutormaydeemproperthereafter
shouldbeaddressedtothecourtforitsconsiderationandapproval.Theonlyqualificationisthattheactionofthe
courtmustnotimpairthesubstantialrightsoftheaccusedortherightofthePeopletodueprocessoflaw.
xxxx
In such an instance, before a reinvestigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor, the
permissionorconsentofthecourtmustbesecured.Ifaftersuchreinvestigationtheprosecutionfindsacogent
basistowithdrawtheinformationorotherwisecausethedismissalofthecase,suchproposedcourseofaction
maybetakenbutshalllikewisebeaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthecourt.46(underscoringsupplied)
WhileAbugotalv.JudgeTiro47heldthattoferretoutthetruth,atrialistobepreferredtoareinvestigation,the
Court therein recognized that a trial court may, where the interest of justice so requires, grant a motion for
reinvestigationofacriminalcasependingbeforeit.
Oncethetrialcourtgrantstheprosecutionsmotionforreinvestigation,theformerisdeemedtohavedeferredto
theauthorityoftheprosecutorialarmoftheGovernment.Havingbroughtthecasebacktothedrawingboard,the
prosecutionisthusequippedwithdiscretionwideandfarreachingregardingthedispositionthereof,48subject
tothetrialcourtsapprovaloftheresultingproposedcourseofaction.
Since a reinvestigation may entail a modification of the criminal information as what happened in the present
case,theCourtsholdingisbolsteredbytheruleonamendmentofaninformationunderSection14,Rule110of
theRulesofCourt:
Acomplaintorinformationmaybeamended,informorinsubstance,withoutleaveofcourt,atanytime
beforetheaccusedentershisplea.Afterthepleaandduringthetrial,aformalamendmentmayonlybemade
withleaveofcourtandwhenitcanbedonewithoutcausingprejudicetotherightsoftheaccused.
However,anyamendmentbeforeplea,whichdowngradesthenatureoftheoffensechargedinorexcludesany
accusedfromthecomplaintorinformation,canbemadeonlyuponmotionbytheprosecutor,withnoticetothe
offendedpartyandwithleaveofcourt.Thecourtshallstateitsreasonsinresolvingthemotionandcopiesofits
ordershallbefurnishedallparties,especiallytheoffendedparty.
Ifitappearsatanytimebeforejudgmentthatamistakehasbeenmadeinchargingtheproperoffense,thecourt
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordancewithsection11,Rule119,providedtheaccusedwouldnotbeplacedindoublejeopardy.Thecourt
mayrequirethewitnessestogivebailfortheirappearanceatthetrial.(emphasissupplied)
Infine,beforetheaccusedentersaplea,aformalorsubstantialamendmentofthecomplaintorinformationmay
bemadewithoutleaveofcourt.49Aftertheentryofaplea,onlyaformalamendmentmaybemadebutwithleave
ofcourtandonlyifitdoesnotprejudicetherightsoftheaccused.Afterarraignment,asubstantialamendmentis
proscribedexceptifthesameisbeneficialtotheaccused.50
Itmustbeclarifiedthoughthatnotalldefectsinaninformationarecurablebyamendmentpriortoentryofplea.
An information which is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground for quashal.51 An amendment
whichoperatestovestjurisdictionuponthetrialcourtislikewiseimpermissible.52
Consideringthegeneralrulethataninformationmaybeamendedeveninsubstanceandevenwithoutleaveof
courtatanytimebeforeentryofplea,doesitmeanthattheconductofareinvestigationatthatstageisamere
superfluity?
Itisnot.
Any remedial measure springing from the reinvestigation be it a complete disposition or an intermediate
modification53ofthechargeiseventuallyaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,whichmustmake
anindependentevaluationorassessmentofthemeritsofthecase.Sincethetrialcourtwouldultimatelymakethe
determinationontheproposedcourseofaction,itisfortheprosecutiontoconsiderwhetherareinvestigationis
necessary to adduce and review the evidence for purposes of buttressing the appropriate motion to be filed in
court.
Moreimportantly,reinvestigationisrequiredincasesinvolvingasubstantialamendmentoftheinformation.Due
process of law demands that no substantial amendment of an information may be admitted without conducting
another or a new preliminary investigation. In Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan,54 the Court
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

5/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

ruled that a substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation,
unlesstheamendedinformationcontainsachargerelatedtoorisincludedintheoriginalInformation.
ThequestiontoberesolvediswhethertheamendmentoftheInformationfromhomicidetomurderisconsidered
a substantial amendment, which would make it not just a right but a duty of the prosecution to ask for a
preliminaryinvestigation.
TheCourtanswersintheaffirmative.
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinativeofthejurisdictionofthecourt.All other matters are merely of form. The following have been
heldtobemereformalamendments:(1)newallegationswhichrelateonlytotherangeofthepenalty that the
courtmightimposeintheeventofconviction(2)anamendmentwhichdoesnotchargeanotheroffensedifferent
or distinct from that charged in the original one (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions
theoryofthecasesoastocausesurprisetotheaccusedandaffecttheformofdefensehehasorwillassume
(4)anamendmentwhichdoesnotadverselyaffectanysubstantialrightoftheaccusedand(5)anamendment
thatmerelyaddsspecificationstoeliminatevaguenessintheinformationandnottointroducenewandmaterial
facts,andmerelystateswithadditionalprecisionsomethingwhichisalreadycontainedintheoriginalinformation
andwhichaddsnothingessentialforconvictionforthecrimecharged.
Thetestastowhetheradefendantisprejudicedbytheamendmentiswhetheradefenseundertheinformation
asitoriginallystoodwouldbeavailableaftertheamendmentismade,andwhetheranyevidencedefendantmight
have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an
information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the
offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been
heldtobeoneofformandnotofsubstance.55(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Matalamaddsthatthemerefactthatthetwochargesarerelateddoesnotnecessarilyorautomaticallydeprive
the accused of his right to another preliminary investigation. Notatu dignum is the fact that both the original
InformationandtheamendedInformationinMatalamweresimilarlychargingtheaccusedwithviolationofSection
3(e)oftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct.
Inonecase,56 it was squarely held that the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder is "one of
substancewithveryseriousconsequences."57Theamendmentinvolvedinthepresentcaseconsistsofadditional
averments of the circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and cruelty, which qualify the offense
chargedfromhomicidetomurder.Itbeinganewandmaterialelementoftheoffense,petitionershouldbegiven
the chance to adduce evidence on the matter. Not being merely clarificatory, the amendment essentially varies
theprosecutionsoriginaltheoryofthecaseandcertainlyaffectsnotjusttheformbuttheweightofdefensetobe
musteredbypetitioner.
TheCourtdistinguishesthefactualmilieusinBuhatv.CA58andPacoyv.Cajigal,59wherein the amendment of
thecaptionoftheInformationfromhomicidetomurderwasnotconsideredsubstantialbecausetherewasnoreal
change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged as alleged in the body of the Information, as the
allegationsofqualifyingcircumstanceswerealreadyclearlyembeddedintheoriginalInformation.Buhatpointed
outthattheoriginalInformationforhomicidealreadyallegedtheuseofsuperiorstrength,whilePacoystatesthat
the averments in the amended Information for murder are exactly the same as those already alleged in the
originalInformationforhomicide.Noneofthesepeculiarcircumstancesobtainsinthepresentcase.
Consideringthatanotheroranewpreliminaryinvestigationisrequired,thefactthatwhatwasconductedinthe
presentcasewasareinvestigationdoesnotinvalidatethesubstantialamendmentoftheInformation.Thereisno
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
wellfoundedbeliefthatacrimehasbeencommittedandtherespondentisprobablyguiltythereofandshouldbe
held for trial.60 What is essential is that petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the charge of
murder61aftertheclaimedcircumstancesweremadeknowntohimasearlyasthefirstmotion.
Petitioner did not, however, make much of the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the proposed
amendedcharge.Despitenoticeofhearing,petitioneroptedtomerelyobservetheproceedingsanddeclinedto
activelyparticipate,evenwithextremecaution,inthereinvestigation.Mercadov.CourtofAppealsstatesthatthe
rulesdonotevenrequire,asaconditionsinequanontothevalidityofapreliminaryinvestigation,thepresenceof
the respondent as long as efforts to reach him were made and an opportunity to controvert the complainants
evidencewasaccordedhim.62
In his second assignment of error, petitioner basically assails the hurried issuance of the last two assailed RTC
Ordersdespitethependencybeforetheappellatecourtofthepetitionforcertiorarichallengingthefirsttwotrial
courtOrdersallowingareinvestigation.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

6/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

The Rules categorically state that the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a
temporary retraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued.63 The appellate court, by
Resolution of February 15, 2007,64 denied petitioners application for a temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminaryinjunction.Supplementaryeffortstoseekinjunctivereliefsprovedfutile.65Theappellatecourtthusdid
noterrinfindingnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthetrialcourtwhenitproceededwiththecaseand
eventually arraigned the accused on March 21, 2007, there being no injunction order from the appellate court.
Moreover, petitioner opted to forego appealing to the DOJ Secretary, a postinquest remedy that was available
afterthereinvestigationandwhichcouldhavesuspendedthearraignment.66
1 a v v p h i1

Regardingpetitionersprotestationsofhaste,sufficetostatethatthepaceinresolvingincidentsofthecaseisnot
perseanindicationofbias.InSantosConciov.DepartmentofJustice,67theCourtheld:
Speedintheconductofproceedingsbyajudicialorquasijudicialofficercannotpersebeinstantlyattributedto
an injudicious performance of functions. For ones prompt dispatch may be anothers undue haste. The orderly
administration of justice remains as the paramount and constant consideration, with particular regard of the
circumstancespeculiartoeachcase.
Thepresumptionofregularityincludesthepublicofficersofficialactuationsinallphasesofwork.Consistentwith
suchpresumption,itwasincumbentuponpetitionerstopresentcontradictoryevidenceotherthanameretallying
of days or numerical calculation. This, petitioners failed to discharge. The swift completion of the Investigating
Panels initial task cannot be relegated as shoddy or shady without discounting the presumably regular
performanceofnotjustonebutfivestateprosecutors.68
ThereisnogroundforpetitionersprotestationsagainsttheDOJSecretaryssuddendesignationofSeniorState
Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco as Acting City Prosecutor of Makati City for the present case69 and the latters
conformitytothemotionforreinvestigation.
In granting the reinvestigation, Judge Alameda cannot choose the public prosecutor who will conduct the
reinvestigation or preliminary investigation.70 There is a hierarchy of officials in the prosecutory arm of the
executive branch headed by the Secretary of Justice71 who is vested with the prerogative to appoint a special
prosecutorordesignateanactingprosecutortohandleaparticularcase,whichbroadpowerofcontrolhasbeen
recognizedbyjurisprudence.72
AsforthetrialcourtsignoringtheDOJSecretarysuncontestedstatementstothemediawhichairedhisopinion
thatiftheassailantmerelyintendedtomaimandnottokillthevictim,onebulletwouldhavesufficedtheDOJ
Secretaryreportedlyutteredthat"thefilingofthecaseofhomicideagainstanoagainstLevistelinteknamanehI
toldyoutowatchoverthatcasethereshouldbeareportabouttheballistics,abouttheparaffin,etc.,thenthats
notacompleteinvestigation,thatswhyyoushouldusethatasaground"noabuseofdiscretion,muchlessa
graveone,canbeimputedtoit.
ThestatementsoftheDOJSecretarydonotevincea"determinationtofiletheInformationevenintheabsenceof
probable cause."73 On the contrary, the remarks merely underscored the importance of securing basic
investigative reports to support a finding of probable cause. The original Resolution even recognized that
probablecauseforthecrimeofmurdercannotbedeterminedbasedontheevidenceobtained"[u]nlessanduntil
amorethoroughinvestigationisconductedandeyewitness/es[is/]arepresentedinevidence[.]"74
Thetrialcourtconcludedthat"thewoundsustainedbythevictimatthebackofhishead,theabsenceofparaffin
testandballisticexamination,andthehandlingofphysicalevidence,"75asrationalizedbytheprosecutioninits
motion,aresufficientcircumstancesthatrequirefurtherinquiry.
Thattheevidenceofguiltwasnotstrongassubsequentlyassessedinthebailhearingsdoesnotaffecttheprior
determinationofprobablecausebecause,astheappellatecourtcorrectlystated,thestandardofstrongevidence
of guilt which is sufficient to deny bail to an accused is markedly higher than the standard of judicial probable
causewhichissufficienttoinitiateacriminalcase.76
Inhisthirdassignmentoferror,petitionerfaultsthetrialcourtfornotconducting,attheveryleast,ahearingfor
judicial determination of probable cause, considering the lack of substantial or material new evidence adduced
duringthereinvestigation.
Petitionersargumentisspecious.
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The executive determination of
probablecauseis 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

7/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

stated, such official has the quasijudicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in
court.Whetherthatfunctionhasbeencorrectlydischargedbythepublicprosecutor,i.e.,whetherhehasmadea
correctascertainmentoftheexistenceofprobablecauseinacase,isamatterthatthetrialcourtitselfdoesnot
andmaynotbecompelledtopassupon.77
Thejudicialdeterminationofprobablecauseisonemadebythejudgetoascertainwhetherawarrantofarrest
should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted,
thereisnecessityforplacingtheaccusedundercustodyinordernottofrustratetheendsofjustice.Ifthejudge
finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.78 Paragraph (a), Section 5,79
Rule112oftheRulesofCourtoutlinestheproceduretobefollowedbytheRTC.
Tomovethecourttoconductajudicialdeterminationofprobablecauseisameresuperfluity,forwithorwithout
such motion, the judge is dutybound to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and the
supportingevidence.Infact,thetaskofthepresidingjudgewhentheInformationisfiledwiththecourtisfirstand
foremosttodeterminetheexistenceornonexistenceofprobablecauseforthearrestoftheaccused.80
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainantandhiswitnesses.Followingestablisheddoctrineandprocedure,heshall(1)personallyevaluate
thereportandthesupportingdocumentssubmittedbytheprosecutorregardingtheexistenceofprobablecause,
andonthebasisthereof,hemayalreadymakeapersonaldeterminationoftheexistenceofprobablecauseand
(2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probablecause.81(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Therulesdonotrequirecasestobesetforhearingtodetermineprobablecausefortheissuanceofawarrantof
arrestoftheaccusedbeforeanywarrantmaybeissued.82Petitionerthuscannot,asamatterofright,insistona
hearing for judicial determination of probable cause. Certainly, petitioner "cannot determine beforehand how
cursory or exhaustive the [judge's] examination of the records should be [since t]he extent of the judges
examinationdependsontheexerciseofhissounddiscretionasthecircumstancesofthecaserequire."83Inone
case,theCourtemphaticallystated:
The periods provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and as such, the judge must
determinethepresenceorabsenceofprobablecausewithinsuchperiods.TheSandiganbayansdetermination
of probable cause is made ex parte and is summary in nature, not adversarial. The Judge should not be
stymiedanddistractedfromhisdeterminationofprobablecausebyneedlessmotionsfordetermination
ofprobablecausefiledbytheaccused.84(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Petitionerproceedstodiscussatlengthevidentiarymatters,arguingthatnocircumstancesexistthatwouldqualify
thecrimefromhomicidetomurder.
The allegation of lack of substantial or material new evidence deserves no credence, because new pieces of
evidence are not prerequisites for a valid conduct of reinvestigation. It is not material that no new matter or
evidencewaspresentedduringthereinvestigationofthecase.Itshouldbestressedthatreinvestigation,asthe
worditselfimplies,ismerelyarepeatinvestigationofthecase.Newmattersorevidencearenotprerequisitesfor
a reinvestigation, which is simply a chance for the prosecutor to review and reevaluate its findings and the
evidencealreadysubmitted.85
Moreover, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in, and be subject of, a
petitionforreviewoncertiorarisincethisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.TheCourtcannotthusreviewtheevidence
adducedbythepartiesontheissueoftheabsenceorpresenceofprobablecause,asthereexistsnoexceptional
circumstancestowarrantafactualreview.86
In a petition for certiorari, like that filed by petitioner before the appellate court, the jurisdiction of the court is
narrowinscope.Itislimitedtoresolvingonlyerrorsofjurisdiction. Itisnottostrayatwillandresolvequestions
and issues beyond its competence, such as an error of judgment.87 The courts duty in the pertinent case is
confinedtodeterminingwhethertheexecutiveandjudicialdeterminationofprobablecausewasdonewithoutor
inexcessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Althoughitispossiblethaterrormaybecommittedin
the discharge of lawful functions, this does not render the act amenable to correction and annulment by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.88
1 a v v p h i1

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SPNo.97761areAFFIRMED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

8/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

SOORDERED.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA*
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABAD**
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*AdditionalMemberperRaffledatedJuly1,2010inlieuofAssociateJusticeArturoD.Brionwhoinhibited.
** Designated as Additional Member, per Special Order No. 843 (May 17, 2010), in view of the vacancy

occasionedbytheretirementofChiefJusticeReynatoS.Puno.
1Rollo,pp.5682,pennedbyJusticeHakimS.Abdulwahid,withJusticesRodrigoV.CosicoandArturoG.

Tayagconcurring.
2 Id.at 8487, penned by Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Arturo G.

Tayagconcurring.
3 Id.at 90, signed by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Henry M. Salazar. The concomitant Resolution was

approvedbyProsecutorIVRomuloNanolaforSeniorStateProsecutorLeoDaceraIII,OfficerinCharge.
4Id.at97.
5Id.at88.
6CArollo,p.58.
7Rollo,pp.101107.
8Id.at109111.
9Id.at122129.
10Id.at145147.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

9/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

11Id.at162168.
12Id.at171177.
13Id.at134135,signedbySeniorStateProsecutorEmmanuelY.Velascoinhiscapacityasthedesignated

ActingCityProsecutorofMakatiCityprohacviceperDepartmentOrderNo.57ofJanuary22,2007(vide
rollo,p.100).
14Id.at180.
15Id.at2021.
16Id.at255260.
17Id.at317350.
18Id.at391392.
19Borlongan,Jr.v.Pea,G.R.No.143591,November23,2007,538SCRA221,229.
20Okabev.Hon.Gutierrez,473Phil.758,777(2004).
21Rollo,pp.424427.
22Inextremecases,thefollowingexceptionstotherulehavebeenrecognized:(1)whentheinjunctionis

necessarytoaffordadequateprotectiontotheconstitutionalrightsoftheaccused(2)whenitisnecessary
fortheorderlyadministrationofjusticeortoavoidoppressionormultiplicityofactions(3)whenthereisa
prejudicialquestionwhichissubjudice(4)whentheactsoftheofficerarewithoutorinexcessofauthority
(5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation (6) when double jeopardy is
clearly apparent (7) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense (8) where it is a case of
persecutionratherthanprosecution(9)wherethechargesaremanifestlyfalseandmotivatedbythelust
for vengeance and (10) when there is clearly no primafacie case against the accused and a motion to
quashonthatgroundhasbeendenied.[Andresv.JusticeSecretaryCuevas,499Phil.36,4849(2005)].
23Asutillav.PNB,225Phil.40,43(1986),whichexplainsthatpublicinterestrequiresthatcriminalactsbe

immediatelyinvestigatedandprosecutedfortheprotectionofsociety.
24IntegratedBarofthePhilippinesv.Atienza,G.R.No.175241,February24,2010.
25Inexceptionalcases,theCourttooktheextraordinarystepofannullingfindingsofprobablecause(vide

Brockav.Enrile,G.R.Nos.6986365,December10,1990,192SCRA183,188189).
26Atienzav.Villarosa,497Phil.689,699(2005).
27FormerlySec.7,asamendedbyA.M.No.05826SC(August30,2005)effectiveOctober3,2005.
28RulesofCourt,Rule112,Sec.1.
29Id.,Rule113,Sec.5,pars.(a)&(b).
30 Id., Rule 112, Secs. 1 & 6, which also provides that in the absence or unavailability of an inquest

prosecutor,thecomplaintmaybefiledbytheoffendedpartyorapeaceofficerdirectlywiththepropercourt
onthebasisoftheaffidavitoftheoffendedpartyorarrestingofficerorperson.
31NewRulesonInquest,DOJDepartmentCircularNo.61(September21,1993),Sec.1.
32VideSoriav.Hon.Desierto,490Phil.749(2005).
33NewRulesonInquest,DOJDepartmentCircularNo.61(September21,1993),Secs.13&15.
34 Unlike in a preliminary investigation, vide 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, DOJ Department Circular No. 70

(July3,2000),Sec.3.
35If upon petition by a properparty under such Rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe x x x.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

10/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

(RulesofCourt,Rule112,sec.4,lastpar.).
362000NPSRuleonAppeal,DOJDepartmentCircularNo.70(July3,2000).
37RulesofCourt,Rule110,Sec.5.
38VidePeoplev.Marcelo,G.R.No.105005,June2,1993,223SCRA24,3940.
39RulesofCourt,Rule110,Sec.16.
40Id.atSec.5,asamendedbyA.M.No.02207SC(April10,2002).
41RevisedManualforProsecutors(2008),PartV,II(A)(1).
42Galvezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.114046,October24,1994,237SCRA685,701702,etseq.
43Soberanov.People,G.R.No.154629,October5,2005,472SCRA125,139140.
44Id.at140.
45Viderollo,p.164.
46Galvezv.CourtofAppeals,supraat698699.
47160Phil.884,890(1975).
48Soberanov.People,supraat140.
49 Except those amendments that downgrade the nature of the offense or exclude an accused from the

chargeasprovidedbysecondparagraphofSection14ofRule110,videSoberanov.People,supra.
50FrondaBaggaov.People,G.R.No.151785,December10,2007,539SCRA531,535.
51Peoplev.Romualdez,G.R.No.166510,April29,2009,587SCRA123,134,statedinresponsetothe

argument that the amendment of an Information filed under an invalid or unauthorized preliminary
investigationcouldretroacttothetimeofitsfilingtothusdefeattheclaimofprescription.
52Agustinv.Pamintuan,G.R.No.164938,August2,2005,467SCRA601,612,involvingthesubstantial

defect of failure to allege in the Information for Libel the place either where the offended party actual
residedatthetimetheoffensewascommittedorwherethelibelousarticlewasprintedorfirstpublished.
53Baltazarv.Chua,G.R.No.177583,February27,2009,580SCRA369,377,wheretheCourtstated:

Consideringthatthetrialcourthasthepoweranddutytolookintotheproprietyoftheprosecutionsmotion
todismiss,withmuchmorereasonisitforthetrialcourttoevaluateandtomakeitsownappreciationand
conclusion, whether the modification of the charges and the dropping of one of the accused in the
information,as recommended by the Justice Secretary, is substantiated by evidence. This should be the
stateofaffairs,sincethedispositionofthecasesuchasitscontinuationordismissalorexclusionofan
accusedisreposedinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.(underscoringsupplied).
54495Phil.664,675676(2005).
55 Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007, 515 SCRA 302, 315316, citing

Matalamv.The2ndDivisionoftheSandiganbayan,supraat674675.
56Dionaldov.Hon.Dacuycuy,etc.,195Phil.544(1981).
57Id.at545.
58333Phil.562(1996).
59G.R.No.157472,September28,2007,534SCRA338.
60Peoplev.Hon.Navarro,337Phil.122,133(1997).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

11/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

61Matalamv.The2ndDivisionoftheSandiganbayan,supraat678,citingPeoplev.Magpale,70Phil.176,

180(1940).
62 Mercado v. CA, 315 Phil. 657, 662 (1995), which aims to forestall attempts at thwarting criminal

investigationsbyfailingtoappearoremployingdilatorytactics.
63RulesofCourt,Rule65,Sec.7.Thepresentprovision,asamendedbyA.M.No.07712SC(December

4,2007),evenaddsthat"[t]hepublicrespondentshallproceedwiththeprincipalcasewithinten(10)days
fromthefilingofapetitionforcertiorariwithahighercourtortribunal,absentatemporaryrestrainingorder
orapreliminaryinjunction,oruponitsexpiration[,andthatf]ailureofthepublicrespondenttoproceedwith
theprincipalcasemaybeagroundforanadministrativecharge."
64CArollo,pp.126127.
65 The appellate court deferred the resolution of the prayer for injunctive reliefs contained in his

SupplementalPetitionuntiltheresponsivepleadingshadbeenfiled(videResolutionofFebruary27,2007,
id.at 216217) and found that the resolution of such prayer was closely related to and inextricably
interwovenwiththeresolutionofthemaincase(videResolutionofApril12,2007,CArollo,pp.307308).
66RulesofCourt,Rule116,Sec.11.
67G.R.No.175057,January29,2008,543SCRA70.
68Id.at89.
69Rollo,p.100.
70VidePeoplev.Hon.Navarro,supraat133,citingAbugotalv.JudgeTiro,supra
71Id.at131.
72 Galvez v. Court of Appeals, supra at 710711 Jalandoni v. Secretary Drilon, 383 Phil. 855, 866868

(2000).
73Cf.Ladladv.Velasco,G.R.Nos.17207072,June1,2007,523SCRA318,345.
74Rollo,p.95.
75Id.at126.
76Id.at87.
77Peoplev.Castillo,G.R.No.171188,June19,2009,590SCRA95,105106.
78Id.at106.
79 Formerly Sec. 6, as amended by A.M. No. 05826SC (August 30, 2005) effective October 3, 2005,

whichreads:
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediatelydismissthecaseiftheevidenceonrecordclearlyfailstoestablishprobablecause.Ifhefinds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or
information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause,thejudgemayordertheprosecutortopresentadditionalevidencewithinfive(5)daysfromnotice
and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or
information.
80Baltazarv.People,G.R.No.174016,July28,2008,560SCRA278,293.
81BorlonganJr.v.Pea,supraat235.
82Ramiscal,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.16972728,August18,2006,499SCRA375,398.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

12/13

8/9/2015

G.R.No.182677

83VideMayorAbdulav.Hon.Guiani,382Phil.757,776(2000).
84Id.at399.
85Roxas v. Hon. Vasquez, 411 Phil. 276, 286287 (2001) unless otherwise required by law, vide Mayor

Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 488 Phil. 203, 212213 (2004), citing Memorandum Circular No. 1266, in
relationtoMemorandumCircularNo.1294ofNovember4,1993.
86Chanv.CourtofAppeals,497Phil.41,50(2005).
87Id.at53.
88D.M.Consunji,Inc.v.Esguerra,328Phil.1168,1185(1996).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#rnt29

13/13