Go vs.

CA Case Digest
Go Vs. Court of Appeals 206 SCRA 138 G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992 Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. 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 in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. Issue: Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses, which however constituted “continuing crimes,” i.e. subversion, membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply. Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.

Sales Vs. Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Sales Vs. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 293 G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 Facts: The petitioner, the incumbent mayor of Pagudpud Ilocos Norte, shot the former mayor and his political rival Atty. Benemerito. After the shooting, he surrendered himself and hence the police

The OMB did nothing of the sort but wallowed the resolution of the graft investigator. but he did not comply with it finding the same superfluous. and the p.i. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is an integral part of the preliminary investigation proper. for brevity) found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. proper. considering the OMB’s defective report and findings. Held: The proper procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation was not followed because of the following reasons. He did it the following day. The proceeding now consists only of one stage. as maintained by the Rules of Procedure by the OMB. cases of passing the buck. were illegal and irregular as the judge doesn’t have jurisdiction on the case.e. Petitioner received a subpoena directing him to file his counter affidavit. This fact alone renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete. This is now a petition for review on the decision of the Sandiganbayan. for brevity). Secondly. Thirdly. While proceedings are ongoing. Judgment is rendered setting aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan. Also after conducting the preliminary investigation (p. The graft investigator recommended the filing of information for murder which the OMB approved. And lastly. the last one being the OMB throwing the buck to the Sandiganbayan. ordering the Sandiganbayan to quash the warrant of arrest and remanding the OMB for completion of the preliminary investigation. He only examined the witness of the complainant. . he issued a resolution forwarding the case to the prosecutor for appropriate action. Firstly.A alleging that: the warrant was null and void because the judge who issued it was a relative by affinity of the private respondent and the p. affidavit of witnesses and other supporting documents. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. The judge after conducting the preliminary examination (p. the charge of murder is a non bailable offense. He did a worse job than the judge.i. The OMB directed the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit. by actually adopting the resolution of the graft investigator without doing anything and threw everything to the Sandiganbayan for evaluation. The C.e. he filed a petition for habeas corpus with the C. Moreover he did not complete it. But the prosecution instead of conducting p.i.e. the preliminary investigation was conducted by 3 different investigators.i. Issue: Whether or Not the OMB followed the procedure in conducting preliminary investigation. a person under preliminary investigation by the OMB is entitled to a motion for reconsideration. none of whom completed the preliminary investigation There was not one continuous proceeding but rather.inspector and wife of the victim filed a criminal complaint for murder against him. Whether or Not petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to submit controverting evidence.i.A. and the p. of his own forwarded the records to the Ombudsman (OMB for brevity) for the latter to conduct the same. The denial thereof is tantamount to the denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. The court cannot accept the Sandiganbayan’s assertion of having found probable cause on its own. he conducted has 2 stages. which merely rekied on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and disregarded the evidence for the defense. He conducted the requisite investigation prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest. granted the petition holding that the judge was a relative by affinity by 3rd degree to the private respondent and the p. the p. The gravity of the offense alone should have merited a deeper and more thorough preliminary investigation. it was patent error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied purely on the OMB’s certification of probable cause given the prevailing facts of the case much more so in the face of the latter’s flawed report and one side factual findings. Petitioner received a copy of the resolution but prevented seeking reconsideration thereof he filed a motion to defer issuance of warrant of arrest pending the determination of probable cause.

with the conformity of the public prosecutor. in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action. before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor. the remedy of preliminary investigation belongs only to the accused. GONZALEZ. Leviste (petitioner) was. charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12. RAUL M. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot. the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case. by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor. ELMO M. HON. VELASCO. If after such re-investigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case. the permission or consent of the court must be secured. can file a motion for reinvestigation. HON. 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. LEVISTE vs. Petitioner was placed under police custody while confined at the Makati Medical Center. inter alia. ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed in court. Issue: Whether or not in cases when an accused is arrested without a warrant. and is granted the authority to prosecute. . and his arraignment was set. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for reinvestigation. Held: No. ALAMEDA. by Information.Thus. After petitioner posted a bond which the trial court approved. EMMANUEL Y. The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed. for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.JOSE ANTONIO C. by himself.he was released from detention. such proposed course of action may be taken but shall likewise be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying. the private complainant. In such an instance. HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS Facts: Jose Antonio C. HON.

. Having brought the case back to the drawing board. subject to the trial court’s approval of the resulting proposed course of action. the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government.Once the trial court grants the prosecution’s motion for reinvestigation. the prosecution is thus equipped with discretion – wide and far reaching – regarding the disposition thereof.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful