ROLITO GO V. CA G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992
FACTS:
l The incident happen along Wilson Street, San Juan, Metro Manila where the car of Rolito Go bumped the car of Eldon Maguan while the Go was traversing a one-way “wrong direction” road.
l Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene.
l A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioner's car plate number.
l The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9 mm caliber pistol.
l Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go.
l The following day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from.
l The police were informed that petitioner had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting.
l The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by petitioner from the cashier of the bake shop.
l The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of petitioner and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan.
l Having established that the assailant was probably the petitioner, the police launched a manhunt for petitioner.
l 7 days after the shooting incident, 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.
l An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner as the gunman.
l That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against petitioner with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal.
l First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed petitioner, in the presence of his lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to a preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to execute any such waiver.
l 2 days after and before the prosecutor filed the information in court, Eldon Maguan died of gunshot wounds.
l Accordingly, instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, the prosecutor filed an information for murder before the RTC. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, 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.
l Counsel for petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus 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.
l Petitioner also prayed that he be released on recognizance or on bail.
l Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, acting on the omnibus motion, wrote on the last page of the motion itself that he interposed no objection to petitioner being granted provisional liberty on a cash bond of P100,000.00.
l Petitioner was released when his cash bond was approved.
l Prosecutor filed with the RTC a motion for leave to conduct a preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended.
l The prosecutor stated that petitioner had filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal an omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation, which motion had been granted by Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, who also agreed to recommend cash bail of P100,000.00.
l 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.
l However, the respondent judge issued an order on July 17, 1991, recalling his bail, the leave to conduct P.I, and his omnibus for immediate release. Likewise, the judge ordered the petitioner to surrender within 48 hours.
l Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order.
l Petitioner contends that the information was null and void because no preliminary investigation had been previously conducted, in violation of his right to due process. Petitioner also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition; this motion was, however, denied by respondent Judge.
l Petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without a 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 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 a preliminary investigation, could not apply in respect of petitioner.
ISSUE:
WON the warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful
WON petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
HELD:
1. NO. The arrest was invalid.
l First, the trial court’s reliance in the case of Umil v. Ramos is incorrect. Herein, appellant was charged with murder while in Umil, the accused was charged with subversion, a continuing offense.
l The petitioner’s appearance to the police station did not mean he was arrested at all. Petitioner neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime.
l Second, the instant case did not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
l Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan.
l The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan.
l 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).
l Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.
l 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."
2. NO. Petitioner did not waive his right to P.I.
l Petitioner had from the very beginning demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. As earlier pointed out, on the same day that the information for murder was filed with the RTC, petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation.
l Moreover, the Court does not believe that by posting bail petitioner had waived his right to preliminary investigation. In People v. Selfaison, we did hold that appellants there had waived their right to a preliminary investigation because immediately after their arrest, they filed bail and proceeded to trial "without previously claiming that they did not have the benefit of a preliminary investigation.
l 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.
l Accordingly, we cannot reasonably imply waiver of a preliminary investigation on the part of petitioner. In fact, when the Prosecutor filed a motion in court asking for leave to conduct a preliminary investigation, he clearly implied to recognized that petitioner's claim to the preliminary investigation was a legitimate one.