You are on page 1of 3

Go v. Court of Appeals J. Feliciano Recit Essentials: Petitioner shot Maguan due to a traffic incident.

. Go together with 2 lawyers voluntary surrender when he learned that he was charged of murder investigation unless he executes and sings a waiver of the provisions of Article 1251 of the Revised Penal Code.

He w as i mme di ate l y de tai ne d and de ni e d hi s ri ght of a preliminary Go filed an 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. RTC granted it then reversed, CA then affirmed the reversed decision. The arrest of Go happened 6 days after and does not fall within the exceptions for a warrantless arrest Rule 113 Sec. 5 (a) and (b). Moreover, he did not admitted guilt by surrendering, therefore there was no arrest. 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. Preliminary investigation although statutory is a substantial right, and it can only be waived if petitioner fails to invoke it before the pleas during arraignment.
Facts: 1. Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro Manila, and nearly bumped the car of herein petitioner Rolito Go at the corner of Wilson St. and Abad Santos St. Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. 2. The next day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting and was informed that petitioner had dined at Cravings Bake Shop (Emphasis supplied) shortly before the shooting. The security guard of the said shop identified Go as the shooter and the Police conducted a manhunt.

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel

3. On 8 July 1991, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police. The police forthwith detained him and An eyewitness positively identified petitioner as the gunman. 4. The police and Provincial prosecutor filed a frustrated murder case against the petitioner. Before the information was filed Maguan died and the prosecutor changed the charge to murder upon filing in the RTC. The Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code 5. On the same day counsel for petitioner filed a 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. Petitioner also prayed that he be released on recognizance or on bail. 6. Also on 16 July 1991, the trial court issued an Order granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. 7. On 17 July 1991, however, respondent Judge recalled the grant of bail and ordered the petitioner to surrender within 48 hours. When the petitioner surrendered, the judge issued an order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit petitioner into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, petitioner was arraigned. 8. CA denied petitioners motion to restrain the arraignment on the ground that it has become moot and academic. stating the reason that the warrantless arrest is valid since the crime has been freshly committed.

Issue: 1. WON the warrantless arrest is valid 2. WON petitioner waived his right in the preliminary investigation Held: Petition granted, CA and RTC decisions SET ASIDE. ORDERED the Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation and a trial be conducted after the investigation. Ratio: 1. The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a) of Rule 113, 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.

Petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police Station,
accompanied by two (2) 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. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter 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. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor proceed under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required petitioner to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. 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.

2. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. The accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed to prolonged anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, not to speak of expense; the right to an opportunity to avoid a process painful to any one save, perhaps, to hardened criminals, is a valuable right.

You might also like