Can a Court Allow Reinvestigation During Trial?
Introduction
A criminal case does not automatically return to the prosecutor merely because the accused presents additional evidence or challenges the manner in which the preliminary investigation was conducted. Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
Nevertheless, Philippine procedure recognizes that a court may, in appropriate circumstances, allow a reinvestigationby the prosecutor. This remedy is exceptional. It is intended to address substantial concerns involving newly discovered evidence, probable miscarriage of justice, or the need to correct serious defects in the preliminary investigation—not to delay trial or provide a second opportunity to present evidence that was already available.
What Is a Motion for Reinvestigation?
A motion for reinvestigation asks the trial court to authorize the prosecutor to review the case after the information has already been filed. The prosecutor may then assess whether the information should remain, be amended, or be withdrawn, subject to the court’s approval.
This remedy is different from a motion for new trial. A motion for new trial is generally filed after judgment and seeks to have the court reconsider the result based on grounds recognized by the Rules of Court. In contrast, a motion for reinvestigation concerns the prosecutorial determination of whether the criminal charge should proceed, even though the case is already pending in court.
Who Decides Whether Reinvestigation May Proceed?
The trial court must first grant permission. The prosecutor, the Department of Justice, or the Ombudsman cannot unilaterally conduct a reinvestigation of a criminal case already pending before the court.
In [Leviste v. Alameda, et al. (2010)](#J1.12), G.R. No. 182677, 2010, the Supreme Court explained that once an information has been filed, any motion for reinvestigation or amendment must be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. If the court grants reinvestigation, the prosecution may evaluate the new evidence and recommend the proper disposition, but the resulting action remains subject to judicial approval.
The same principle was recognized in [Velasquez v. Undersecretary of Justice, et al. (1990)](#J4.1), G.R. No. 88442, 1990. After the filing of the information, the court—not the Secretary of Justice or another prosecutorial authority—retains control over the judicial case.
Grounds for Allowing Reinvestigation
Newly Discovered Evidence
The usual ground is the existence of evidence that was not previously available and that may materially affect the finding of probable cause or the proper charge.
Evidence is not “newly discovered” merely because a party decided to present it late. The applicant must generally show that:
- the evidence was discovered only after the preliminary investigation;
- it could not have been discovered and presented earlier despite reasonable diligence;
- it is material and not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
- it is sufficiently substantial that it may affect the result.
These requirements are reflected in the treatment of newly discovered evidence under the Rules of Court and were summarized in [Ombudsman-Mindanao v. Ibrahim (2016)](#J3.39), G.R. No. 211290, 2016.
Failure to Receive Notice or Participate
A reinvestigation may also be considered when a party was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation because the subpoena was not received or was received only after the proceeding had substantially progressed.
The current DOJ-NPS rules recognize that a motion to reopen a preliminary investigation may be entertained when justified by newly discovered evidence of substantial value or when the complainant or respondent failed to participate because of non-receipt or belated receipt of the subpoena. These grounds do not automatically require reopening; the circumstances must still justify the remedy.
This rule appears in [2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings (2024)](#I2.13).
Probable Miscarriage of Justice
The Secretary of Justice has authority over prosecutors and may order a reinvestigation in appropriate situations involving a probable miscarriage of justice. That executive authority, however, does not displace the jurisdiction of the trial court once an information has been filed.
[De Lima, et al. v. Cabanes, et al. (2021)](#J6.28), G.R. Nos. 219295-96, 2021, discusses the Secretary of Justice’s authority under Section 4 of R.A. No. 10071, or the Prosecution Service Act of 2010, to review, reverse, revise, modify, or affirm prosecutorial resolutions. The exercise of that authority must still be harmonized with the trial court’s authority over the criminal case already filed in court.
When Reinvestigation Should Be Denied
A court may deny the motion when it is based on evidence that was already known during the preliminary investigation, when the movant offers no explanation for the late presentation, or when the evidence would not materially affect the case.
In [Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.), Inc. v. Talavera (2005)](#J2.10), Administrative Matter No. RTJ-5-1909, 2005, the Supreme Court criticized the grant of reinvestigation based on an affidavit that was plainly not newly discovered. The affidavit had been known to the accused during the preliminary investigation, and no satisfactory explanation was given for its earlier non-presentation.
Reinvestigation should also not be used to reprobate a final prosecutorial resolution or to defeat the authority of the Department of Justice after the proper appellate or review process has ended. In the same case, the Court held that it was erroneous for the judge to authorize a reinvestigation that effectively enabled the prosecutor to reverse a final resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
Effect of Granting the Motion
When the trial court grants reinvestigation, it generally defers to the prosecutorial authorities to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the information should stand. The prosecutor may recommend dismissal, withdrawal, amendment, or continuation of the case.
However, the prosecutor’s recommendation is not self-executing. The court must independently determine whether the proposed action is legally proper. A dismissal or withdrawal of the information requires judicial action.
The offended party must also be given notice and an opportunity to submit evidence opposing the accused’s position. In [Baltazar v. Dimalanta (2005)](#J7.10), Administrative Case No. 5424, 2005, the Supreme Court recognized that proceedings for reinvestigation of cases already filed in court must be addressed to the trial court. If reinvestigation is ordered, the prosecutor may receive and evaluate the parties’ submissions, with notice to the complainant or offended party.
Amendment of the Information After Reinvestigation
Reinvestigation may result in a proposed amendment to the information. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure governs this matter.
Before plea, an information may generally be amended in form or substance without leave of court. After plea and during trial, a formal amendment requires leave of court and must not prejudice the accused. A substantial amendment that changes the nature of the charge may require additional preliminary investigation and safeguards for the accused.
In [Leviste v. Alameda, et al. (2010)](#J1.12), the Court held that when a substantial amendment upgrades the charge, such as changing homicide to murder, the accused must be afforded the opportunity for a new or additional preliminary investigation.
Where the proposed amendment excludes an accused before plea for purposes of using that person as a state witness, Section 14, Rule 110 applies. The requirements for discharge under Section 17, Rule 119 apply when the accused remains in the information and discharge is sought after arraignment but before the prosecution rests its case, as explained in [Soberano, et al. v. People of the Philippines (2005)](#J5.13), G.R. No. 154629, 2005.
Form and Supporting Documents
The motion should be in writing and should clearly identify the legal and factual grounds relied upon. If the request is based on newly discovered evidence, the movant should attach affidavits of witnesses or authenticated copies of documents showing the nature and significance of the evidence.
Section 4, Rule 121 of the [Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000)](#L2.152) requires a motion for new trial or reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence to be supported by witness affidavits or duly authenticated documentary evidence. Although a motion for reinvestigation is procedurally distinct from a motion for new trial, the same evidentiary discipline is useful in demonstrating that the evidence is genuine, material, and previously unavailable.
The motion should address the following matters:
- the date and manner by which the evidence was discovered;
- why it could not have been obtained during the preliminary investigation;
- the specific facts that the evidence would establish;
- how those facts affect probable cause or the criminal charge; and
- the relief sought from the court.
Does Filing the Motion Automatically Stop Trial?
No. The mere filing of a motion for reinvestigation does not automatically suspend the criminal proceedings. The movant should expressly request the suspension or deferment of trial and explain why proceeding would cause prejudice or render the requested reinvestigation ineffective.
The court may deny suspension when the motion appears dilatory, lacks factual support, or does not present evidence capable of changing the prosecutorial or judicial assessment of the case. The court must balance the request against the accused’s constitutional right to speedy trial and the interest of the State and the offended party in the prompt resolution of the case.
Recommended Approach for Counsel
Counsel should file the motion promptly after discovering the evidence. Delay weakens the claim that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier and may lead the court to view the motion as a tactic to postpone trial.
The motion should be filed with the trial court where the criminal case is pending, not merely with the prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. The prosecutor may be furnished a copy, but the court must first determine whether reinvestigation is warranted.
Counsel should also notify the offended party and anticipate opposition. The offended party has a legitimate interest in the proceeding and should be allowed to present evidence contradicting the new material.
Typical Scenarios
| Situation | Likely Treatment |
|---|---|
| A witness comes forward with genuinely new testimony that directly negates an element of the offense. | The court may consider reinvestigation if the witness could not reasonably have been located or presented earlier. |
| The accused presents an affidavit already known during preliminary investigation. | The motion is likely to be denied absent a convincing explanation for the earlier omission. |
| The prosecution seeks to withdraw the information after reinvestigation. | The prosecutor must obtain appropriate action from the trial court; withdrawal is not automatic. |
| The prosecution proposes to upgrade the charge after reinvestigation. | The court must examine whether the amendment is formal or substantial and whether additional preliminary investigation is required. |
| The motion is filed only to postpone scheduled trial dates. | The court may deny the motion and proceed with trial to protect the right to speedy disposition. |
Conclusion
A motion for reinvestigation is available after the filing of an information, but it is not an ordinary procedural step. The movant must show a substantial reason—usually genuinely newly discovered and material evidence, a serious procedural defect, or circumstances indicating a probable miscarriage of justice.
The motion must be directed to the trial court because the court has jurisdiction over the pending criminal case. If reinvestigation is allowed, the prosecutor evaluates the evidence, but the court retains authority over the final disposition, any amendment of the information, and the continuation or dismissal of the case.
Before filing, counsel should verify the procedural history, establish when the evidence was discovered, explain why it was unavailable earlier, attach competent supporting proof, request suspension only when justified, and ensure notice to the prosecutor and offended party. These steps give the court a sufficient basis to distinguish a legitimate request for reinvestigation from a merely dilatory motion.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
