Roleto Go, petitioner VS. CA, respondent G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992
FELICIANO, J
FELICIANO, J
Facts:
On July 2, 1991, Allegedly Roleto Go shot Maguan due to traffic altercation when their cars nearly bumped each other. Police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting. The Security Guard saw the whole incident and point herein petitioner Roleto Go as the gunman, which he positively identified when questioned by the authorities. Being convinced of the suspect’s identity, the police launched a manhunt operation. On July 8, 1991, 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 and denied his right of a preliminary investigation unless he executes and signs a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The Petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation on the ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted before the information was filed.
On July 2, 1991, Allegedly Roleto Go shot Maguan due to traffic altercation when their cars nearly bumped each other. Police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting. The Security Guard saw the whole incident and point herein petitioner Roleto Go as the gunman, which he positively identified when questioned by the authorities. Being convinced of the suspect’s identity, the police launched a manhunt operation. On July 8, 1991, 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 and denied his right of a preliminary investigation unless he executes and signs a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The Petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation on the ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted before the information was filed.
Issues:
1. Whether a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan Police in respect of petitioner Go.
2. Whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
Ruling:
1. NO. The court ruled that, there are instances specifically enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful. Despite that, the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Roleto 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.
2. NO. The petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary to the prosecutor's claim that 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. The 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.
1. Whether a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan Police in respect of petitioner Go.
2. Whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
Ruling:
1. NO. The court ruled that, there are instances specifically enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest may be considered lawful. Despite that, the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Roleto 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.
2. NO. The petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary to the prosecutor's claim that 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. The 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment