Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 276 views

    Go Vs CA (G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    1. Rolito Go shot Eldon Maguan following a traffic incident and fled the scene. Six days later, Go turned himself into the police station accompanied by lawyers. An eyewitness identified Go as the shooter. 2. Go argued he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant as the crime did not just occur and the arresting officers did not witness the shooting. The court agreed the arrest was unlawful under the rules of criminal procedure. 3. Go also claimed his right to a preliminary investigation in his motion. By doing so before posting bail, the court found he did not waive this right as argued by the prosecutor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Go Vs CA (G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    276 views3 pages
    1. Rolito Go shot Eldon Maguan following a traffic incident and fled the scene. Six days later, Go turned himself into the police station accompanied by lawyers. An eyewitness identified Go as the shooter. 2. Go argued he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant as the crime did not just occur and the arresting officers did not witness the shooting. The court agreed the arrest was unlawful under the rules of criminal procedure. 3. Go also claimed his right to a preliminary investigation in his motion. By doing so before posting bail, the court found he did not waive this right as argued by the prosecutor.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2 Case digest

    Original Title

    Go vs CA [G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Rolito Go shot Eldon Maguan following a traffic incident and fled the scene. Six days later, Go turned himself into the police station accompanied by lawyers. An eyewitness identified Go as the shooter. 2. Go argued he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant as the crime did not just occur and the arresting officers did not witness the shooting. The court agreed the arrest was unlawful under the rules of criminal procedure. 3. Go also claimed his right to a preliminary investigation in his motion. By doing so before posting bail, the court found he did not waive this right as argued by the prosecutor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    276 views3 pages

    Go Vs CA (G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    1. Rolito Go shot Eldon Maguan following a traffic incident and fled the scene. Six days later, Go turned himself into the police station accompanied by lawyers. An eyewitness identified Go as the shooter. 2. Go argued he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant as the crime did not just occur and the arresting officers did not witness the shooting. The court agreed the arrest was unlawful under the rules of criminal procedure. 3. Go also claimed his right to a preliminary investigation in his motion. By doing so before posting bail, the court found he did not waive this right as argued by the prosecutor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    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.

    You might also like