KRIZELLE MAE BARONGAN ETHICS NAG

1. Read and analyze the situation:

Go vs CAG.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992 Facts: Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong
direction on a one-way street, nearly bumped Eldon Maguan’s car. Go alighted from his car, shot
Maguan and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioner’s
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. *

2. Discuss what would virtue ethics say?

Virtue ethics in law enforcement would be the idea that if you are a good person, you will do
good things, and to be good, you must do good.  Virtue is defined as a desirable character trait, such as
courage, that lies between two extremes, rashness and cowardice. The virtuous agent is involved in a
continual quest to find balance in ethical decision-making. Such an agent does not apply any specific
‘rules’ in making ethical decisions, but rather attempts to make decisions that are consistent with the
pursuit of a particular kind of excellence that entails exercising moral judgment guided by virtues like
courage, wisdom, temperance, fairness, integrity and consistency. Aristotle writes, “The virtue of man
also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well”.
He strongly believes you are what you do, so in that respect the ideal virtuous person does the right
thing because she desires to be virtuous.

In the case of Mr. Go, he showed no moral virtues or intellectual virtues. Would a virtuous
person have used the wrong direction of the road and kill another person? He clearly showed failure of a
virtuous character. The state of character of this man is not good which prompted him to not do good as
well. Mr. Go’s  actions are not fair for two reasons. First, he killed an innocent man whom has nothing
against him. Second, he was clearly on the wrong direction of the one-way street, and so he was wrong
in the first place. Lastly, If Mr. Go had self-control he would not have killed another man out of rage of
nearly car accident.

In this case, there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of Section 5
of Rule 113; in fact, petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police Station,
KRIZELLE MAE BARONGAN ETHICS NAG

accompanied by two lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did
not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting
that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. He showed cowardice,
dishonesty, irresponsibility and imprudence. This was his chance to take responsibility of his action yet
he did not do it, instead he made a way, tricked the officers for him to surpass being put to jail.

In a law enforcement context, society has expectations of virtuous officers. This are:

 trustworthiness. Includes integrity, promise-keeping, and loyalty.

 Respect. Treating everyone with respect, regardless of any biases or provocations.
 Responsibility. Includes accountability, pursuit of excellence, and self-restraint.
 Justice and fairness. Includes equity and demonstrating due process.
 Caring. Showing concern for others. Showing consideration for decisions that affect
others.
 Civic virtue and citizenship. Being socially conscious. Demonstrating concern for one’s
community.

When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the Court of
apppeal should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there
was probable cause for charging petitioner in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. But, they did not,
they have set and commenced the trial without the preliminary investigatin which gave the petitioner an
opportunity to be able to bail out his crime. As an officer of the law, the court of appeal must know the
proper procedure of the trial, however, they showed unjustness, unfairness and irresponsibility as well.
One might think that this case was planned and the court of appeal was paid to make Mr. Go unguilty
and be free from being imprisoned.

Moreover, since petitioner had not been arrested, with or without a warrant, he was also
entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. The
police officers showed irresponsibility in this scene, they were harsh in decision and did not think of the
proper procedure of detaining a suspect of crime.

In this case, the officer, the court of appeal and of course Mr. Go are example of people who are
unvirtuous. And must not be an example to all of us.