CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

Go. Vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992

TOPIC : Searches and Seizures

FACTS:
● PETITION for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals.
● July 2, 1991: Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro Manila,
heading towards P. Guevarra St. Wilson St. is a one-way street. Rolito Go entered Wilson St.
and drove the opposite direction.
● His and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped each other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and
shot Maguan inside his car. Afterwards, he boarded his car and left the scene. The incident was
witnessed by a security guard.
● The police obtained an impression of Go’s credit card which he used in a bake shop shortly
before the shooting. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he
positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Having established that the
assailant was probably the petitioner, the police launched a manhunt for petitioner.
● July 8, 1991: Go 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.
● That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against petitioner
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Go was informed, in the presence of his
lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first
sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC.
● July 11, 1991: Instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, the Prosecutor filed an
information for murder before the RTC. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the
information, the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted
because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver.
● That same afternoon, counsel for petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and
proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful
and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed.

ISSUE:
1. Had a lawful warrantless arrest been effected by the San Juan Police in respect of Go?
2. Had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation?
PETITIONER (ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING): RESPONDENTS (THE COURT OF APPEALS;
- He was not lawfully arrested without warrant THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding
because he went to the police station six (6) Judge, Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, NCJR
days after the shooting which he had allegedly Pasig, M.M.; and PEOPLE OF THE
perpetrated PHILIPPINES):
- Go had been validly arrested without warrant.
Since petitioner’s identity as the gunman who
had shot Eldon Maguan on 2 July 1991 had
been sufficiently established by police work,
petitioner was validly arrested six (6) days later
at the San Juan Police Station.

SC RULING (FELICIANO, J.):

1. No, there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113
which provides for when a warrantless arrest is lawful.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
• The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the
police power.
• The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well
as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It does not demand absolute equality among
residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.