7/27/2017 G.R. No.
101837 | Some Law Notes
Some Law Notes
…pag iigusan, payt!
Tag Archives: G.R. No. 101837
Go vs CA
FEBRUARY 24, 2015 | KAAARINA
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 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
https://somelawnotes.wordpress.com/tag/g-r-no-101837/ 1/3
7/27/2017 G.R. No. 101837 | Some Law Notes
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.”
Petitioner’s “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 gunman’s car’s plate number which turned
out to be registered in petitioner’s wife’s 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
https://somelawnotes.wordpress.com/tag/g-r-no-101837/ 2/3
7/27/2017 G.R. No. 101837 | Some Law Notes
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 petitioner’s claim to
preliminary investigation was a legitimate one.
CASE DIGESTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE DIGEST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW G.R. NO.
101837 GO VS CA WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.
https://somelawnotes.wordpress.com/tag/g-r-no-101837/ 3/3
