The clarification comes one day after the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 235 issued an arrest warrant against Leviste. The warrant stems from charges filed by the DOJ on September 29, alleging a violation of the Public Service Act. According to Abugan, the DOJ’s position is based on a finding of prima facie evidence that Solar Corporation willfully neglected and intentionally failed to comply with its obligations. The court has indicated that Leviste will be given an opportunity to appear before it to answer the charges.
Leviste is currently in France, where he is attending to his mother, Senator Loren Legarda, who is on medical leave. His absence from the jurisdiction has prompted discussions regarding the cancellation of his passport and the formal declaration of him as a fugitive. Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida addressed the matter, stating that prosecutors retain control over the procedural trajectory of the case. Vida noted that while the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has been mentioned in discussions regarding passport cancellation, it is the prosecutors who determine the course of the case, utilizing tools such as the fugitive declaration followed by passport cancellation as part of the standard process.
The legal framework for these actions was established in November when the Supreme Court set out specific procedures and criteria for declaring an accused individual a fugitive from justice. Under this definition, a fugitive is not merely someone who evades punishment but also an accused person who flees to evade prosecution entirely. The DOJ has reiterated its appeal for Leviste to voluntarily submit himself to the court’s jurisdiction to resolve the matter.
In parallel with the proceedings against Leviste, two co-accused individuals have posted bail. Their arraignment is scheduled for October 26, 2026. Leviste, for his part, has addressed his supporters through a public statement, urging them not to worry. In the statement, he characterized the situation as a minor matter compared to other ongoing events, expressing gratitude for the support he has received.
The case highlights the procedural distinctions between the issuance of an arrest warrant and the formal declaration of an accused as a fugitive. While an arrest warrant authorizes law enforcement to detain an individual, the fugitive designation carries specific implications for international cooperation and the potential revocation of travel documents. The DOJ has emphasized that these are separate but related tools within the prosecutor’s authority, to be applied according to established criteria.
Vida’s comments underscore the institutional role of the prosecution in managing such cases, distinguishing it from the investigative agencies that may assist in enforcement. The DOJ’s stance suggests that while the warrant is active and the individual is abroad, the formal administrative and judicial steps required to label him a fugitive have not yet been concluded. The next formal step remains the defendant’s appearance before the RTC, either through voluntary surrender or through apprehension if the fugitive status is formally declared and international legal mechanisms are engaged.
The proceedings serve as a test of the recent Supreme Court guidelines on fugitive status, clarifying how domestic courts and executive agencies interact when dealing with accused individuals who are outside the country’s borders. The case remains at the pre-trial stage, with the primary legal issue being the compliance with the Public Service Act allegations and the procedural handling of Leviste’s absence.
