Go Vs CA

GO VS CA
G.R. NO. 101837, FEBRUARY 11, 1992
FACTS:
Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, nearly
bumped Eldon Maguans car. Go alighted from his car, shot Maguan and left the
scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioners
car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the
shooting. A manhunt ensued.
Six days after, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to
verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied
by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the
shooting, who was at the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner
as the gunman.
Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and
commencing trial without preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the
petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been
posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been arrested without a
warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of The
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure
pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests.
Petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he
went to the police station six (6) days after the shooting which he had allegedly
perpetrated. Thus, petitioner argues, the crime had not been just committed at
the time that he was arrested. Moreover, none of the police officers who arrested
him had been an eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and accordingly none had
the personal knowledge required for the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest.
Since there had been no lawful warrantless arrest, Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court which establishes the only exception to the right to preliminary
investigation, could not apply in respect of petitioner.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan
Police in respect of petitioner Go;
Whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation
HELD:
1. No. The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest or detention of
petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides as follows:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person;
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
Petitioners arrest took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The
arresting officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section
5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the arrest
effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected when
[the shooting had] in fact just been committed within the meaning of Section 5
(b). Moreover, none of the arresting officers had any personal knowledge of
facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The
information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made
by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting one stated that petitioner was the
gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunmans cars plate number
which turned out to be registered in petitioners wifes name. That information did
not, however, constitute personal knowledge.
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of
petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.
2. No. In the circumstances of this case, the Court does not believe that by
posting bail, petitioner had waived his right to preliminary investigation. In People
v. Selfaison, the Court held that appellants there had waived their right to
preliminary investigation because immediately after their arrest, they filed bail
and proceeded to trial without previously claiming that they did not have the
benefit of a preliminary investigation.
In the instant case, petitioner Go asked for release on recognizance or on bail and
for preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. He had thus claimed his right
to preliminary investigation before respondent Judge approved the cash bond
posted by petitioner and ordered his release on 12 July 1991. Accordingly, the
Court cannot reasonably imply waiver of preliminary investigation on the part of
petitioner. In fact, when the Prosecutor filed a motion in court asking for leave to
conduct preliminary investigation, he clearly if impliedly recognized that
petitioners claim to preliminary investigation was a legitimate one.

Go Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Go Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Go Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GO VS CA

G.R. NO. 101837, FEBRUARY 11, 1992

Whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation

You might also like