GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO.

101837;
11 FEB 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 petitioners 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.

Issues:
(1) WON warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
(2) WON 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.