You are on page 1of 2

CRIMPRO RULE 112

Title G.R. No. 106087


Go vs CA Date: April 7, 1993
Ponente: ROMERO, J p:
ROLITO GO Y TAMBUNTING, petitioner THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 168, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
NCJR, PASIG, METRO MANILA and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents
This is a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated September 23, 1992 denying petitioner's Petition
and affirming the Decision and Resolution promulgated on March 9, 1992 and June 26, 1992, respectively, of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 26305.
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.

An information was filed charging herein petitioner Rolito Go for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Metro
Manila. 6 days after the shooting petitioner voluntarily presented himself together with his two lawyers to the
police upon obtaining knowledge of being hunted by the latter. However, he was immediately detained and
denied his right of a preliminary investigation unless he executes and sings a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code.

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.

Petitioner’s contention:
Upon omnibus motion for immediate release on recognizance or on bail and proper preliminary investigation on
the ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted before the
information was filed, which is violative of his rights.

The same was granted but later on reversed by the lower court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The
appellate court in sustaining the decision of the lower court held that petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid in
view of the fact that the offense was committed, the petitioner was clearly identified and there exists valid
information for murder filed against petitioner

Hence, the petitioner filed this present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S
(1) Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
(2) Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
RATIO

The general rule on arrest provides that the same is legitimate if effected with a valid warrant. However, there are
instances specifically enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful. However, the
warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito Go does not fall within the terms of said rule.

The police were not present at the time of the commission of the offense, neither do they have personal knowledge on
the crime to be committed or has been committed not to mention the fact that petitioner was not a prisoner who has
escaped from the penal institution. In view of the above, the allegation of the prosecution that petitioner needs to sign
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code before a preliminary investigation may be conducted
is baseless. In this connection, petitioner has all the right to ask for a preliminary investigation to determine whether is
probable cause that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof as well asto prevent him
from the hassles, anxiety and aggravation brought by a criminal proceeding.This reason of the accused is substantial,
which he should not be deprived of.

On the other hand, petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary to the prosecutor's
claim. The right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time
of entering a pleas at arraignment. The facts of the case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary
investigation before his arraignment and he, through his counsel denied answering questions before the court unless
they were afforded the proper preliminary investigation.

For the above reasons, the petition was granted and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. The
Supreme Court however, contrary to petitioner's allegation, declared that failure to accord the right to preliminary
investigation did not impair the validity of the information charging the latter of the crime of murder.

RULING
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Attys. Raymundo A.
Armovit, Miguel R. Armovit and Rafael R. Armovit are hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P500.00 each with a stern
WARNING that a repetition of this or similar act and language will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this
Resolution be attached to their records.

SO ORDERED
2S 2016-17 (MATABUENA)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/apr1993/gr_106087_1993.html