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

101837; 11 FEB 1992]

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

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) Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
(2) Whether or Not 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.