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 petitioner’s 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.

Ruling:
The general rule on arrest provides that the same is legitimate if effected with a
valid warrant. However, there are instances specifically enumerated under the
law when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful. Despite that, the
warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito Go does not fall within the terms
of said rule. The police were not present at the time of the commission of the
offense, neither do they have personal knowledge on the crime to be committed
or has been committed not to mention the fact that petitioner was not a prisoner
who has escaped from the penal institution. In view of the above, 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. In this connection, petitioner has all the right to ask for a
preliminary investigation to determine whether is probable cause that a
crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof as well
as to prevent him from the hassles, anxiety and aggravation brought by a
criminal proceeding. This reason of the accused is substantial, which he should
not be deprived of.

On the other hand, petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary
investigation contrary to the prosecutor's claim. The right to preliminary
investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at
the time of entering a plea at arraignment.

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.

Q facts of the case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary
investigation before his arraignment and he, through his counsel denied
answering questions before the court unless they were afforded the proper
preliminary investigation. For the above reasons, the petition was granted
and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. The Supreme
Court however, contrary to petitioner's allegation, declared that failure to accord
the right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the information
charging the latter of the crime of murder.
 CONQUILLA VS. BERNARDO
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737

Facts:

In a verified complaint dated 30 July 2008, complainant Conquilla charged

respondent judge with usurpation of authority, grave misconduct, and gross
ignorance of the law.
Complainant alleged that on 4 July 2008, a criminal complaint for direct assault
was filed against her before the MTC of Bocaue, Bulacan. The complaint was
signed by Police Chief Inspector Rizalino Andaya of the Bocaue Police Station.
On 8 July 2008, respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and
found probable cause to hold the complainant for trial for the crime of direct
assault. Respondent judge then issued a warrant of arrest dated 8 July 2008,
with the bail fixed at P12,000.
On 10 July 2008, upon motion of complainant, respondent judge issued an order
reducing the bail for complainants provisional liberty to P6,000. On the same
date, complainant posted cash bail of P6,000 for her provisional liberty.
Complainant then filed an administrative complaint, alleging that under A.M. No.
05- 08-[2]6-SC, first level court judges no longer have the authority to conduct
preliminary investigations. Thus, complainant avers that respondent judge
committed an illegal act constituting gross ignorance of the law and procedure
when he conducted the preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of
arrest. Complainant claims that the hasty issuance of the warrant of arrest was
without legal basis and unjustly prejudiced complainant and deprived her of her
liberty. Complainant submits that respondent judge usurped the power of the
prosecutor, who was not even given the chance to comment on complainants
Motion to Reduce Bail. Furthermore, complainant alleges that when she learned
about the warrant of arrest, she called respondent judges wife, who said she
would help in having the bail reduced
to P6,000.00 and would have the case for direct assault against herein
complainant dismissed provided herein complainant cancel the wifes debt of
P35,000.00 and provided that herein complainant loan the wife an additional
amount of P50,000.00.1
In his Comment, respondent judge states that he issued the warrant of arrest in
good faith because he was convinced that there was probable cause and that it
was necessary to place the complainant under immediate custody to prevent a
frustration of justice. Although respondent judge knew that the Supreme Court
already amended Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
by removing the conduct of the preliminary investigation from judges of first
level courts, he argues that the power to personally determine probable cause in
the issuance of a warrant of arrest cannot be revoked. Besides, even if such
power to determine probable cause was indeed revoked by the amendment,
respondent judge submits that technical rules can be relaxed if their
implementation will result in injustice. Respondent judge further states that he
did not usurp the power of the prosecutor when he reduced the bail considering
that under Section 20 of Rule 114 the court may increase or decrease the bail
upon good cause.

Lastly, respondent judge denies any knowledge of the alleged conversation and
transaction between complainant and his wife.

Issue: Whether or not the conduct of the respondent judge is a direct

contravention of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC?

Ruling:

Yes. The Resolution in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October
2005, removed the conduct of investigation from the scope of authority of first
level courts judges. Under Section 2 of Rule 112, only the following officers are
authorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (a) Provincial or City
Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors;
and (c) Other officers as may be authorized by law. Furthermore, Sec 5b of Rule
112 provides: SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. ‒
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. ‒ When required pursuant to the second
paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling
under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court SHALL be
conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section.
MTC judges are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation. The
complaint was direct assault a public school teacher. The duration of the penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods is 2 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 6 years. Thus, the offense charged against complainant requires
the conduct of preliminary investigation as provided under Section 1 of Rule 112
of the Rules of Court. It was therefore incumbent upon respondent judge to
forward the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for
preliminary investigation, instead of conducting the preliminary investigation
himself.
In this case, respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation without
authority and issued the warrant of arrest. Thus, these acts are void for want of
jurisdiction. The reduction of bail is also void because in the first place,
respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case itself.